UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4645
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOE LOUIS HAMPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00118)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall A. Swann, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin
Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joe Louis Hampton pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2000); one count of using and carrying a firearm during and
in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2000); and one count of possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year
of imprisonment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The
district court determined that Hampton qualified for sentencing as
a career offender, and his Guideline1 range was 262 to 327 months.
The Government moved for a departure based on Hampton’s substantial
assistance, and recommended a sentence of 240 months of
imprisonment. The district court granted the motion for departure
and sentenced Hampton to a total of 240 months of imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel filed an Anders2 brief, in which he states that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether
the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend
a greater departure from the Guideline range. Hampton was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed
a brief. We affirm.
1
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2005).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
Hampton did not assert at sentencing that the Government
breached the plea agreement, and he must therefore demonstrate
plain error before he can obtain any relief on this claim. 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, Hampton 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 plea
agreement and the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings
leads us to conclude that the Government did not breach the plea
agreement, and Hampton is therefore not entitled to relief on this
claim.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Hampton’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Hampton, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hampton 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 Hampton. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 3 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -