United States v. Vernon , 36 F. App'x 86 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 01-4602
    MONSTSHO EUGENE VERNON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-01-239)
    Submitted: April 30, 2002
    Decided: June 3, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    C. Rauch Wise, LAW OFFICE OF C. RAUCH WISE, Greenwood,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
    Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-
    ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. VERNON
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Monstsho Eugene Vernon pled guilty to seven counts of armed
    bank robbery in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113
    (a) & (d), 2 (West
    2000), and two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a
    crime of violence in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (c) (West 2000).
    On appeal, Vernon contends that the district court erred in finding a
    factual basis for his plea for the § 924(c) offense charged in count 12
    of his indictment, charging him with using, carrying, and brandishing
    a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; specifically,
    an armed bank robbery. The district court’s determination of whether
    a factual basis exists for a guilty plea and its acceptance of a guilty
    plea is reversed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell,
    
    104 F.3d 649
    , 652 (4th Cir. 1997).
    The record discloses an adequate factual basis for Vernon’s guilty
    plea. The court’s reading of the charges in the indictment, coupled
    with Vernon’s admission to the charges, provided a sufficient basis
    for the plea. See United States v. McFadden, 
    238 F.3d 198
    , 200 (2nd
    Cir. 2001). Moreover, Vernon also acknowledged the accuracy of the
    Government’s recitation of the factual basis for the charge, which
    specifically averred Vernon’s use of a handgun in connection with the
    robbery.
    Vernon also asserts that his receipt of a three-level enhancement
    for use of a "dangerous weapon" in connection with the underlying
    armed robbery offense undermines the validity of his § 924(c) convic-
    tion for use of a firearm, because both offenses relate to the same
    armed robbery. While we note that the Government concedes that
    application of the dangerous weapon enhancement to the pertinent
    bank robbery charge was improper under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 2K2.4, this does not undermine the validity of Vernon’s
    plea to the § 924(c) charge. Moreover, we further note that Vernon
    does not challenge the propriety of the enhancement, or the Govern-
    ment’s position that application of the enhancement did not ultimately
    affect Vernon’s sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm Vernon’s conviction and sentence. We dis-
    pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    UNITED STATES v. VERNON                     3
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4602

Citation Numbers: 36 F. App'x 86

Judges: Luttig, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 6/3/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023