UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TONY LEE DRUM, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:14-cr-00232-MOC-1) 

Submitted: March 14, 2016 Decided: March 24, 2016

Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Lee Drum pled guilty to two counts of harboring, 

transporting, providing, obtaining, and maintaining a person who 

had not attained the age of 18 years, knowing that the person 

would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(2) (2012), and two counts of 

transporting an individual who had not attained the age of 18 

years in interstate commerce with the intent that the individual 

engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) 

(2012). A presentence report (PSR) calculated Drum’s Guidelines 

range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014) at 188 

to 235 months’ imprisonment. Drum objected to the PSR’s 

assignment of enhancements under USSG §§ 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), (4)(A), 

and 3A1.1(b)(1). After conferring with Drum, however, his 

counsel stated at sentencing that Drum would “abandon” those 

objections and that the parties were making a joint 

recommendation to the district court for a sentence of 188 

months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Drum to four 

concurrent terms of 188 months’ imprisonment and supervised 

release for a term of life. 

On appeal, Drum challenges his sentence, arguing that the 

waiver of his right to object, or the withdrawal of his 

objections, was not knowing and voluntary because the district 

court did not inquire whether he personally wished to withdraw 
3

his objections. He thus asserts that, as a consequence, this 

court should vacate his sentence. 

We review de novo the validity of a defendant’s waiver of 

objections to a PSR, examining the totality of the circumstances 

to determine whether the defendant’s waiver was knowing and 

voluntary. United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298-99 

(4th Cir. 2014). After review of the record and the parties’ 

briefs, we conclude that, even if Drum did not validly waive his 

challenge to the application of the Guidelines enhancements, he 

fails to establish any plain error warranting vacatur of his 

sentence. See United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 183-84 

(4th Cir. 2010) (holding that, where specific allegation of 

sentencing error is not made below, review on appeal is for 

plain error); see also Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 

1121, 1126-27, 1130-31 (2013) (setting forth elements of plain 

error standard). Drum does not argue that the district court 

erred in applying the enhancements under USSG §§ 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), 

(4)(A), and 3A1.1(b)(1). He further has not asserted that any 

error in the application of those enhancements affected his 

substantial rights. See United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 

267, 273 (4th Cir. 2010) (“To demonstrate that a sentencing 

error affected his substantial rights, Hernandez would have to 

show that, absent the error, a different sentence might have 

been imposed.”). He also presents no argument challenging the 
4

imposition by the district court of the lifetime term of 

supervised release. 

Because Drum fails to establish plain error by the district 

court, the predicate to his claim on appeal that his sentence 

should be vacated is not established. We therefore reject the 

claim and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED