Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4201
No. 15-4205
No. 15-4215
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District
Judge.
(6:14-cr-00400-HMH-6;
6:14-cr-00400-HMH-1;
6:14-cr-00400-HMH-4)
Submitted:
Decided:
December 4, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Sikeo Harvell Butler, William Oneal Winfrey, and Terrance
Edward
Stewart
appeal
their
convictions
for
conspiracy
to
of
also
21
U.S.C.
challenges
841(a)(1),
his
(b)(1)(A),
conviction
of
being
846
a
(2012).
felon
in
his
sentence,
and
affirm
the
remainder
of
the
district
Prior to accepting a
the
defendant
of,
and
determines
that
the
defendant
Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
1991).
F.2d at 119-20.
Because Butler did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in
the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule
11 error, the plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error.
States
v.
Sanya,
774
F.3d
812,
815
(4th
Cir.
United
2014).
To
establish plain error, Butler must show: (1) there was error;
(2)
the
error
substantial
was
plain;
rights.
and
Henderson
(3)
v.
the
error
United
affected
States,
133
S.
his
Ct.
confirmed
and
was
the
during
pleading
indictment,
the
Rule
guilty
which
11
to
colloquy
the
adequately
that
he
conspiracy
as
described
the
described
in
offense.
and
show
had
that
reviewed
the
it
court
with
plainly
colloquy.
his
attorney.
erred
in
its
Thus,
he
Rule
11
Although Butler
be
part
of
conspiracy
without
knowing
all
other
appellant
knew
that
he
was
part
of
venture
which
United States v.
Brown, 856 F.2d 710, 712 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted).
appears
on
the
face
of
the
record,
ineffective
United States
v.
over
trial
court
timely
objection
Arkansas,
435
U.S.
improperly
475,
reversal
488
requires
is
joint
automatic.
(1978).
Absent
an
not
initiate
representation.
an
inquiry
into
the
propriety
of
joint
joint
representation
where
no
objections
or
special
(1)
under
an
actual
conflict
of
interest
that
348, 360 (4th Cir. 2001), affd, 535 U.S. 162 (2002).
Winfrey did not object to the joint representation and his
contention
that
recitations
his
was
dispute
equivalent
of
the
to
an
Governments
objection
or
factual
special
part
of
his
conflict
of
interest
claim,
Winfrey
reviewed for plain error because he did not seek to withdraw his
plea.
that
court
conspiracy.
basis,
failed
to
adequately
explain
the
crime
of
Winfrey
admitted,
establish conspiracy.
on
the
record,
facts
sufficient
to
without merit.
Finally,
procedurally
Winfrey
and
contends
substantively
that
his
unreasonable
sentence
because
the
was
court
quotation
marks
omitted).
We
reject
Winfreys
arguments and conclude that the waiver is valid and that his
claims fall within its scope.
contends
substantively
his
sentence
unreasonable.
reasonableness,
standard.
that
applying
We
is
review
deferential
procedurally
a
sentence
and
for
abuse-of-discretion
In
whether
the
district
court
properly
calculated
the
for
3553(a)
an
appropriate
(2012)
selected sentence.
sentence,
factors,
and
considered
sufficiently
the
18
U.S.C.
explained
the
Id. at 49-51.
or
within-Guidelines
record
an
individualized
sentence,
assessment
it
based
must
on
place
the
on
the
particular
it
case
must
at
appellate review.
The
reasons
provide
rationale
Id.
given
permit
the
and
for
to
to
hand
articulated
adequate
tailored
sentence
meaningful
need
not
be
can
be
matched
to
factor
appropriate
for
with
respect
to
the
defendant
before
it
and
also
of
sentence
under
the
totality
of
the
whether
the
sentencing
court
acted
reasonably
both
to
the
extent
of
the
divergence
9
from
the
sentencing
range.
Cir.
2014)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
major
United States v.
Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
enough
to
satisfy
the
appellate
court
that
it
has
we
conclude
that
the
district
court
issued
contention that the court failed to state the reason for its
upward
variance
in
open
court.
Although
the
court
did
not
the
sentencing
statutory
can
be
factors.
matched
The
to
reasoning
[each
of
articulated
these
at
3553(a)]
his
potential
conduct
Because
federal
state
was
sentence
sentence
for
procedurally
Stewart
failed
would
to
his
and
raise
run
concurrent
post-guilty
plea
substantively
the
question
with
his
criminal
unreasonable.
of
concurrent
consecutively
Government
terms
of
notes,
or
the
concurrently.
statutory
imprisonment
imposed
Additionally,
default
at
is
that
different
as
the
[m]ultiple
times
run
consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run
concurrently.
Accordingly, we
Stewart
contends
that
his
sentence
is
the
court
in
this
particular
case
He also contends
over-relied
on
one
11
sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court overrelied on a single fact, we conclude that Stewarts reliance on
United
States
misplaced.
In
v.
Engle,
that
592
case,
F.3d
we
495
found
(4th
that
Cir.
the
2010),
district
is
court
one
postplea
facthis
multiple
3553(a)
criminal
factors.
activitywhich
Given
Stewarts
implicates
misdirected
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.