Court Opinion

ID: 1000072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:00.447265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:21.631560
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-4917
THOMAS JERECKI, a/k/a Thomas
Robert Jerecki, a/k/a Tommy
Jerecki,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-111)

Submitted: October 21, 1999

Decided: October 29, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Andrew A. Raptis, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca
A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Jerecki pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994), and received a career offender sentence of 262 months impris-
onment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). He
appeals his sentence on the ground that he was not informed that he
could be sentenced as a career offender before he entered a guilty
plea. We affirm.

At the guilty plea hearing, the government advised the district court
that it did not intend to file an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
§ 851 (1994) for an enhanced sentence based on prior felony drug
convictions. Before accepting Jerecki's guilty plea, the district court
informed him that he would be sentenced under the federal sentencing
guidelines according to his relevant conduct and his past criminal his-
tory. Jerecki indicated that he understood. When the presentence
report was prepared, Jerecki was classified as a career offender
because he had previously been convicted of a felony drug offense
and a crime of violence. Jerecki did not contest his career offender
status, and was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment, the bottom of
the applicable guideline range. On appeal, Jerecki does not dispute the
validity of his guilty plea. However, he requests resentencing without
the career offender enhancement.

We have previously held that the district court is not required to
inform the defendant what the sentencing guideline range will be
before accepting his guilty plea. See United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d
1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218, 219
(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir.
1991). Certain factors which may affect the guideline range, such as
the defendant's criminal history, often are not fully disclosed until
after preparation of the presentence report. Therefore, we discern no
basis for resentencing in this case.

                    2
We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3