UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4694
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT C. STEED, a/k/a Rob, a/k/a Robert Sneed,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:06-cr-00960-SB-1)
Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicole N. Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for
Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Peter T.
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Steed pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and 500 grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C). Based
on a prior felony drug conviction, Steed was sentenced to the
statutory minimum twenty year sentence. On appeal, Steed claims
the following: (1) the district court failed to ascertain
during the Rule 11 hearing whether he understood that there was
a twenty-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence; (2) his
sentence was improperly enhanced because the Government did not
provide timely notice under 18 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) and the court
failed to inquire if he wanted to challenge the predicate
conviction in the § 851 notice; (3) he had insufficient time to
review the Presentence Investigation Report; and even if the
alleged errors alone are insufficient to provide relief,
(4) under the cumulative error doctrine the combined effect of
the errors affected his substantial rights. We affirm.
Because Steed failed to raise any of these challenges
to the district court, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 593, 598 (4th Cir. 2003);
2
United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir. 2002).
“To establish plain error, [Steed] must show that an error
occurred, that the error was plain, and the error affected his
substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247,
249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Steed makes this three-part
showing, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the
error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We conclude Steed has failed to show that his
substantial rights were violated. It is clear from the record
that Steed was giving sufficient notice of the fact that his
sentence would be increased based on a prior felony drug
conviction and that as a result of the increase, his statutory
minimum sentence was twenty years’ imprisonment. He has failed
to show that there was any error in using the prior conviction
to enhance his sentence or that there was some other error or
defect with the resulting statutory minimum sentence.
Furthermore, we conclude Steed did not show his substantial
rights were violated when he claimed he did not see the
presentence investigation report before sentencing. We further
conclude that the cumulative error doctrine is of no help to
3
Steed. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
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