UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH LAMONT CHAPLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-
cr-00186-AMD-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Conte, LAW OFFICE OF J.R. CONTE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bonnie S.
Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lamont Chaplin pled guilty to bank robbery,
for which he received a 144-month sentence. On appeal, Chaplin
argues that his guilty plea and sentence must be set aside
because the district court impermissibly and prejudicially
participated in plea negotiations in violation of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(1).
As Chaplin did not object to the district court’s
alleged involvement in plea discussions, nor attempt to withdraw
his plea, we review the alleged violation of Rule 11 under the
plain error standard. United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453,
462 (4th Cir. 2006). “[I]n order to prevail, [Chaplin] must
demonstrate not only the existence of plain error but also that
this error affected [his] substantial rights; . . . [and] that a
refusal to notice the error would seriously affect the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
court was not impermissibly involved in plea negotiations.
Furthermore, Chaplin cannot establish that the district court’s
alleged Rule 11(c)(1) error affected the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3