United States v. Monte Baker
682 F. App'x 223
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Monte Jawuane Baker pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and was sentenced to 71 months’ imprisonment.
- Baker’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal; Baker filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting sentencing error and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Baker argued his prior convictions no longer qualified as "crimes of violence" under Johnson and thus the Sentencing Guidelines base offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2) was misapplied.
- The district court’s Rule 11 plea colloquy omitted immigration consequences, but Baker is a U.S. citizen and the omission did not affect substantial rights.
- The panel reviewed the plea for plain error, reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, and considered whether Johnson invalidated the Guidelines enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was defective | Omission of immigration advice rendered plea infirm | Omission was minor and Baker is a U.S. citizen, so no substantial-rights effect | No plain error; plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by factual basis |
| Whether applying USSG § 2K2.1(a)(2) was plain error after Johnson | Predicate convictions no longer qualify as crimes of violence after Johnson, so base level was incorrect | Johnson does not invalidate application of the advisory Guidelines here | No plain error; Beckles holds Johnson does not apply to advisory Guidelines |
| Procedural reasonableness of the sentence | Sentence improperly calculated due to Guidelines error | Guidelines were properly applied; parties had opportunity to be heard and § 3553(a) considered | Sentence free of procedural error and presumptively reasonable (within Guidelines) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not raising the Guidelines/Johnson issue | Counsel failed to object at sentencing and on appeal | Ineffective-assistance claim not resolved on direct appeal; appropriate for § 2255 collateral review | No conclusive record of ineffective assistance; claim should be raised via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if at all |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief certifying lack of nonfrivolous issues on appeal)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (categorical ACCA vagueness holding for residual clause)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (holding Johnson does not apply to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (defendant must show reasonable probability that Rule 11 error affected plea decision)
- DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea colloquy)
- Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review of Rule 11 hearing when no withdrawal motion)
- Moore, 810 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2016) (plain-error standard applied to Guidelines objections not raised below)
- Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims typically brought under § 2255)