UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WESLEY LESHAWN BARNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00479-WO-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Leshawn Barnett pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed on
a 60-month sentence of imprisonment. The district court
sentenced Barnett to 60 months’ imprisonment and 5 years of
supervised release. He now appeals. Appellate counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether the district court complied with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable.
Counsel questions whether the district court substantially
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Barnett’s guilty plea, but
does not identify any specific error committed during the plea
hearing. Because Barnett did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review this issue for plain error.
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). To
establish plain error, Barnett must demonstrate that (1) the
district court committed an error; (2) the error was plain;
(3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error
“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden of
2
demonstrating that an error affected his substantial rights by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
guilty but for the Rule 11 omission. Sanya, 774 F.3d at 816.
Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing
leads us to conclude that the district court substantially
complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Barnett’s
guilty plea and that any omissions by the district court did not
affect Barnett’s substantial rights. See United States v.
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Barnett
has failed to show that the district court’s acceptance of his
guilty plea warrants reversal, we affirm his conviction.
Counsel also questions the reasonableness of Barnett’s
sentence. However, we lack jurisdiction to review Barnett’s
sentence of imprisonment because the district court sentenced
Barnett in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
agreement, and Barnett’s sentence is not unlawful or expressly
based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v.
Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). To the extent that
we may retain jurisdiction over Barnett’s supervised release
sentence because the plea agreement did not include an
agreed-upon term of supervised release, we conclude that the
district court did not plainly err in imposing the five-year
term of supervised release. See United States v.
Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 421-22 (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing
3
supervised release sentence for plain error where defendant did
not object to imposition of supervised release in district
court). Therefore, we dismiss Barnett’s challenge to his
sentence of imprisonment and affirm Barnett’s sentence of
supervised release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Barnett’s conviction and supervised
release sentence, and dismiss Barnett’s challenge to his
sentence of imprisonment. This court requires that counsel
inform Barnett, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Barnett
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 Barnett.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4