United States v. Melvin Maxwell
698 F. App'x 144
4th Cir.2017Background
- Melvin Maxwell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 67 months' imprisonment.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but raised whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was proper and whether the sentence was reasonable.
- Maxwell did not file a pro se supplemental brief; the Government did not file an appellate brief.
- Maxwell did not move to withdraw his plea or preserve any Rule 11 challenge in district court, so appellate review of the plea colloquy proceeded under plain-error review.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy and imposed the sentence after considering § 3553(a) factors; the court also revoked supervised release and imposed a consecutive 22-month revocation term (not within the scope of the appeal but discussed).
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record under Anders, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 | Maxwell (via counsel) questioned whether Rule 11 requirements were met | District court substantially complied with Rule 11; plea was knowing and voluntary | Affirmed: no plain error; plea valid |
| Standard of review for unpreserved Rule 11 error | Maxwell argued potential defects in colloquy | Appellate review should be plain-error because no withdrawal/preservation occurred | Affirmed: plain-error review applied |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Maxwell argued sentence may be unreasonable | District court considered Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors and explained sentence | Affirmed: sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable |
| Revocation of supervised release and consecutive sentence | Maxwell (implicitly) raised issues about supervised-release revocation in Anders brief | Appeal limited to judgment in the substantive offense; court also found no error in revocation/consecutive sentence | Affirmed (but noting revocation issue was outside appeal scope) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel’s withdrawal when no meritorious appellate issues exist)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 plea colloquy requirements)
- United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review for unpreserved Rule 11 objections)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors to consider in sentencing review)
- United States v. White, 850 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2017) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (rebutting presumption requires showing sentence unreasonable under § 3553(a) factors)