Carol JEFFERSON v. NAT‘L R.R. PASSENGER CORP.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Decided: November 18, 2016
666 F. App‘x 191
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carol Jefferson appeals the district court‘s orders dismissing her complaint for insufficient service of process and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jefferson v. Nat‘l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 8:15-cv-02275-DKC, 2015 WL 6437364, 2015 WL 9311987 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015). 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
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Don BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6076
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Submitted: October 20, 2016; Decided: November 18, 2016
666 F. App‘x 191
D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Don Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute, possess with intent to distribute, and manufacture, methamphetamine, in violation of
With respect to counsel‘s arguments, because Brown objected neither to the presentence report‘s assertion that he was a career offender nor to the offense level calculation based on drug quantity, those determinations are reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 2013). “To satisfy plain error review, the defendant must establish that: (1) there is a sentencing error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects his substantial rights.” United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015). “If the three-part plain error test is satisfied, we must decide whether to cure the error, and should not do so unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
As to the determination that Brown qualified as a career offender, we conclude that no plain error occurred. We have never addressed whether North Carolina felony breaking or entering qualifies as a crime of violence absent consideration of the residual clause,* and therefore the law is not settled in a manner sufficient to satisfy the plain error test. Moreover, even if we were inclined to find plain error, the district court imposed the statutory minimum 120-month sentence, more than 200 months below the bottom of the Guidelines range. As a result, any error committed by the district court did not impact Brown‘s sentence and therefore “could not have affected [his] substantial rights.” United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 343 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We also conclude that the district court did not plainly err in attributing 150 to 500 grams of methamphetamine to Brown. In the plea agreement and factual basis that Brown signed, he agreed that the amount of methamphetamine known to or reasonably foreseeable by him was between 150 and 500 grams of actual methamphetamine. Brown reaffirmed this during the plea hearing. To the extent that Brown relies on McFadden, that decision is easily distinguishable from this case and is inapposite.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Brown‘s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown 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 Brown.
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