UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ZACHARY JEREMIAH HOOVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (CR-05-75)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Zachary J. Hoover appeals the 18-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a criminal
information charging him with sexual abuse of a minor, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a) (2000). We affirm.
Hoover’s sole argument on appeal is that the Government
breached the plea agreement by stating to the court at sentencing
that the court did not need to decide whether Hoover should
register as a sex offender. Hoover did not object below, and he
must therefore demonstrate plain error before he can obtain any
relief. See United States v. Fant, 974 F.2d 559, 562 (4th Cir.
1992) (applying plain error analysis in context of breach of plea
agreement). In order to do so, Hoover must establish the breach
was “‘so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct
it affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the
judicial proceedings.’” United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 66
(4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Fant, 974 F.2d at 565). Our review of the
record convinces us that the Government did not breach the plea
agreement in responding to the district court’s questions at
sentencing.
Accordingly, we affirm Hoover’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -