UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-01221-GRA-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney,
E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keoki Harris pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). He was sentenced to 188 months
in prison. He appeals, contending that the district court
violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and that his guilty plea was
unknowing and involuntary. We affirm.
Harris claims that the district court violated Rule 11
because the court advised him that his advisory Guidelines range
would be 151-188 months. This range proved erroneous; the
correct range was 188-235 months. The mistake did not
constitute a violation of Rule 11, however, for there is no
requirement in the Rule that a defendant be provided with a
forecast of his advisory Guidelines range. Rather, under Rule
11(b)(1)(H)-(I), the district court must inform the defendant
of, and ensure that he understands, the statutory minimum and
maximum sentences that he faces. “In reviewing the adequacy of
compliance with Rule 11, [we] accord deference to the trial
court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy
with the defendant.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,
116 (4th Cir. 1991). During Harris’ Rule 11 colloquy, the
minimum and maximum sentences that he faced were mentioned
several times, and Harris represented to the court that he
2
understood. We conclude that the court complied with this
requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
Harris argues that he relied on the district court’s
erroneous prediction of his advisory Guidelines range in
deciding to plead guilty and that his plea was therefore
unknowing and involuntary. Because Harris did not move in the
district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the
Rule 11 hearing are reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To
establish plain error, [Harris] must show that an error
occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected
his substantial rights.” See United States v. Muhammad, 478
F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir 2007). Even if Harris satisfies these
requirements, “correction of the error remains within our
discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error
seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” See id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, Harris cannot make the required showing. During
the plea colloquy, the court asked, “Do you understand that you
could get anywhere between 151 months to 188 months?” Harris
replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” Harris’ sentence of 188 months
falls within this range. He cannot seriously claim that the
error in forecasting his advisory Guidelines range affected his
3
substantial rights when he received a sentence within that
range.
We accordingly affirm. 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