UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE BAUM, a/k/a Dog Pound,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00002-FL-1)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lewis A. Thompson, III, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC,
Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Baum pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and
5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012) (Count 1), and to one count of money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (2012) (Count 2). The
district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 273 months
on Count 1 and a concurrent, within-Guidelines sentence of 240
months on Count 2. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Baum’s counsel has filed a brief certifying
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but citing the
validity of Baum’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of his
sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Baum has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
To assure that a defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary,
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 requires a district court to “inform the
defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of
the charge(s) to which the plea is offered, any mandatory
minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty and various
rights.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
1991). Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw his
guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain error. United
States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant
2
can only satisfy the plain error standard if he shows that, but
for an error by the district court during the Rule 11
proceeding, there is a reasonable probability that he would not
have entered his plea. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the record reveals that
the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 by
ensuring that Baum was competent to plead guilty and that his
guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an
independent basis in fact.
Our review of Baum’s sentence is for reasonableness, under
an abuse of discretion standard. * Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then
consider substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural
error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to
adequately explain the selected sentence. Id. Substantive
reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances, and if the sentence imposed falls within or below
*
Because we decline to enforce appeal waivers sua sponte,
our Anders review of Baum’s sentence is unaffected by the waiver
provision in his plea agreement. See United States v.
Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).
3
the properly-calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review of the record reveals
neither a procedural error nor anything overcoming the
applicable presumption of reasonableness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Baum’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Baum, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Baum 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 Baum.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4