Court Opinion

ID: 9946998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:00:53.000932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.731965
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4460      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4460

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        STANLEY JEROME HARRIS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00197-WO-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Nicole Royer DuPre, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4460       Doc: 19          Filed: 02/29/2024       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Stanley Jerome Harris pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Harris to a sentence within the advising Sentencing

        Guidelines range of 235 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

        Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds

        for appeal but questioning whether Harris’ guilty plea is valid. Although notified of his

        right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Harris has not done so. The Government declined

        to file a brief and did not seek enforcement of the appellate waiver. ∗

               Because Harris did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we

        review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.

        McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). “Under the plain error standard, [we] will

        correct an unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error

        affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

        reputation of judicial proceedings.”        United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491

        (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to

        conclude that Harris entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual

        basis supported the plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20

        (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning no plain error, we conclude that Harris’ guilty plea is valid.

               ∗
                 Because the Government has not moved to enforce the appellate waiver, we
        conduct a full review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263,
        271 (4th Cir. 2007).

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4460         Doc: 19      Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harris requests that a petition be

        filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

        in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

        a copy thereof was served on Harris.

               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

                                                     3