UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4266
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAQUAN LOVELY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00945-GRA-1)
Submitted: December 31, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, David C. Stephens, Carrie A. Fisher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaquan Lovely pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
and transfer with intent to use unlawfully five or more
identification documents other than those lawfully issued to the
members of the conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028(a)(3), (f) (2006) (Count Two), and conspiracy to possess
unlawfully a means of identification of another person, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006) (Count Three). The
district court sentenced Lovely to a total term of forty-five
months of imprisonment, and Lovely timely appealed. We affirm.
On appeal, Lovely argues that his guilty plea should
be vacated because there was not an adequate factual basis to
support the plea in light of his comments at the plea hearing
and the statement of a co-defendant at sentencing. He also
asserts that the court violated his constitutional rights by
accepting the guilty pleas of nine defendants in the same
hearing, which created confusion and unfair prejudice. Lovely
has also filed a pro se motion to file a supplemental brief and
the proposed brief. The Government responds, arguing that an
adequate factual basis was established and the plea hearing was
properly conducted.
Lovely did not object to the court’s acceptance of his
plea, or seek to withdraw his plea in the district court. This
court therefore reviews his arguments under the plain error
2
standard. United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 657 (4th
Cir. 2007). To succeed on this claim, Lovely must demonstrate:
(1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error
affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even when these conditions are
satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion to notice the
error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at
736 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Prior to “entering judgment on a guilty plea, the
court must determine that there is a factual basis for the
plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). This “ensures that the court
make clear exactly what a defendant admits to, and whether those
admissions are factually sufficient to constitute the alleged
crime.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir.
1991). There is no error in the acceptance of a plea “so long
as the district court could reasonably determine that there was
a sufficient factual basis.” United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). The factual basis may be
supported by anything in the record. DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 120.
Our review of the record convinces us that the district court
did not err in concluding that an adequate factual basis was
established to support Lovely’s plea.
3
Lovely also argues that the district court violated
his rights by holding a plea hearing for nine defendants
simultaneously. He asserts that this multi-defendant format
created confusion, prevented the district court from assuring
that he was entering a knowing and voluntary plea, and prevented
him from clarifying that he did not intend to plead guilty to
Counts Two and Three, but to Count One, as well as preventing
him from explaining his lack of intent. As with his first
argument, Lovely did not assert an objection or seek to withdraw
his plea in the district court. Thus, this claim is reviewed
under the plain error standard. Lovely provides no Fourth
Circuit authority in support of his argument, which we conclude
is squarely contradicted by the record. The district court
conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that ensured that Lovely’s
plea was knowing and voluntary.
We grant Lovely’s motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief. We have considered the arguments asserted in that brief
and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
Lovely’s convictions. 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
4