UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PARNELL L. MOORE, a/k/a Pete, a/k/a P,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:12-cr-00030-JLK-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abram J. Pafford, PAFFORD, LAWRENCE & CHILDRESS, PLLC, 

Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United

States Attorney, Donald Wolthuis, Assistant United States

Attorney, Drew J.M. Bradylyons, Special Assistant United States

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Parnell L. Moore pled guilty, without a plea 

agreement, to three counts of distributing cocaine base 

(“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) 

(2012) (Counts One, Four, and Five), three counts of possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) (2012) (Counts Two, Six, and Eight), and two counts of 

using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime and 

possessing the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking 

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (Counts Three 

and Seven). The district court sentenced Moore to concurrent 

terms of 60 months’ imprisonment on Counts One, Two, Four 

through Six, and Eight. In addition, the court sentenced Moore 

to terms of 60 months and 300 months on Count Three and Seven, 

the minimum imprisonment terms required by statute for these

counts, to be served consecutively to each other and to the 

concurrent sentences on the other counts. Thus, Moore’s total 

sentence was 420 months’ imprisonment.

Moore has timely appealed. He contends that, as a 

result of an error by the district court at the plea hearing, 

his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm.

Because Moore did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge is reviewed for plain 
3

error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th 

Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Moore must show that: 

(1) an error was made; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the 

error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 

507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if Moore makes this showing, 

correction of the error lies within our discretion, which we 

will not exercise unless the error “seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and 

alterations omitted). 

Under Rule 11(b)(1)(I) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, a district court is required, before 

accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, to advise the defendant of

and ensure that he understands any applicable mandatory minimum 

penalty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(I). To satisfy this 

obligation, the court must “clearly advise” the defendant of the 

applicable minimum penalty. United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218, 

223 (4th Cir. 1994). 

In this case, Moore was subject to a minimum prison 

term of five years on Count Three and a consecutive minimum term 

of twenty-five years on Count Seven, both consecutive to any 

other term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Although 

the Government recited the statutory maximum terms for each 
4

count and the mandatory minimum terms for Counts Three and Seven

at the Rule 11 hearing, the district court did not personally 

advise Moore of these mandatory minimum terms or probe his 

understanding of them. 

Even if the district court’s omission amounted to 

error that was plain, Moore is not entitled to relief because 

the error did not impact his substantial rights. Cf. United 

States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995). An error 

impacts a defendant’s substantial rights if it is so prejudicial 

as to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

at 532. In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this 

standard by showing that he would not have pled guilty but for 

the Rule 11 error. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 

74, 83 (2004); Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532. Here, Moore was made 

aware of the mandatory minimum prison terms at least twice 

before he pled guilty: once when the Government recited the 

mandatory minimum and the maximum prison terms on each count at 

the arraignment and again at the plea hearing prior to the entry 

of his guilty plea. We therefore conclude that Moore cannot 

credibly assert that he was unaware of the mandatory minimum 

sentences prior to his guilty plea. Accordingly, we discern no 

plain error. 

 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED