Court Opinion

ID: 9778329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:47.531063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:06.370282
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4145     Doc: 28         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4145

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRUCE HENRY SMITH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 23-4147

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRUCE HENRY SMITH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
        at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00081-TSK-MJA-1; 1:22-
        cr-00049-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                    Decided: August 28, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4145      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Brandon
        Scott Flower, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4145       Doc: 28         Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Bruce Henry Smith appeals his convictions and the 30-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty pleas, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to three counts of misusing

        a social security account number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); making a false

        statement in an application for a passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542; and failing to

        appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii). Smith’s counsel has filed a

        brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Smith’s guilty pleas are valid.

        Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Smith has not

        done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief or to move to enforce the

        appeal waiver contained in Smith’s plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.

               Because Smith did not move to withdraw his guilty pleas in the district court, we

        review the validity of his pleas for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621,

        622 (4th Cir. 2016). “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). In the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes that an error

        affected his substantial rights by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for the

        error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 608

        (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4145       Doc: 28          Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in

        which it informs the defendant of, and determines the defendant understands, the rights he

        is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the applicable

        maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United

        States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court also must ensure

        that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in

        the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,”

        Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Our review of the plea colloquy confirms that the magistrate

        judge * fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 and properly concluded that

        Smith’s pleas were knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. We

        therefore find that Smith’s pleas are valid.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in these cases and

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

        judgments. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith 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 Smith.

               *
                Smith consented to proceed before the magistrate judge for purposes of the
        Rule 11 hearing.

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4145         Doc: 28    Filed: 08/28/2023   Pg: 5 of 5

              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

                                                  5