United States v. Nigel Faison
704 F. App'x 252
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Nigel L. Faison pled guilty without a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute foxy (21 U.S.C. § 841), being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- District court conducted a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy; the court did not expressly mention forfeiture during that hearing.
- Faison was sentenced to 106 months’ imprisonment, a below-Guidelines sentence the district court adopted after considering arguments and allocution.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no reversible error but raised whether the sentence was reasonable and whether omitting forfeiture at the Rule 11 hearing was plain error; Faison submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error as Faison did not move to withdraw his plea, and for abuse-of-discretion on sentencing (reasonableness review).
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed convictions and sentence, finding no plain error from the forfeiture omission and that the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of guilty plea / Rule 11 omission of forfeiture | Faison (appellant) argued the district court plainly erred by not addressing forfeiture at the Rule 11 hearing | Government argued the omission did not affect Faison’s substantial rights because he knew forfeiture would occur | No plain error; plea substantially complied with Rule 11 and omission did not affect substantial rights |
| Plea voluntariness | Faison suggested plea may be deficient due to omission | Government maintained plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent with full awareness of consequences | Plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; affirmed |
| Sentence procedural reasonableness | Faison challenged sentence as potentially unreasonable | Government argued district court followed Guidelines, considered §3553(a) factors, and adequately explained below-Guidelines sentence | Sentence procedurally sound: court adopted PSR range, considered §3553(a), allowed allocution, and explained deviation |
| Sentence substantive reasonableness | Faison argued sentence might be substantively unreasonable | Government argued 106 months was justified given considerations and district court’s explanation | Sentence substantively reasonable; affirmed under deferential abuse-of-discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appointed counsel asserting appeal lacks merit)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard and requirement to show prejudice to affect substantial rights)
- United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2002) (standard for plain-error review of guilty pleas when no withdrawal motion is filed)
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 2008) (definition of significant procedural sentencing errors)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (review for abuse of discretion when defendant repeats sentencing objections)
- United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2012) (standards for reviewing Guidelines calculations and sentencing enhancements)