United States v. Lewis , 243 F. App'x 757 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4633
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL N. LEWIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (1:05-cr-00108-IMK)
    Submitted:   July 25, 2007                 Decided:   August 3, 2007
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy M. Sirk, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L.
    Potter, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael N. Lewis appeals from his convictions for various
    cocaine base offenses.        On appeal, he asserts that the district
    court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea and improperly participated in plea negotiations. With
    regard to the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, we have reviewed
    the briefs and record and find no reversible error.              Accordingly,
    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.               (J.A. at
    278-92).
    Turning    to    Lewis’s    claim     that   the   district   court
    improperly participated in plea negotiations, we note that Rule
    11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “governs guilty
    pleas and clearly prohibits a court from participating in plea
    negotiations.”     United States v. Bradley, 
    455 F.3d 453
    , 460 (4th
    Cir. 2006).     Because this issue was not raised below, review is for
    plain error, and Lewis must show that any errors affected his
    substantial rights.         United States v. Young, 
    470 U.S. 1
    , 15-16
    (1985).
    Lewis asserts that the court made numerous comments
    during    his   plea   hearings*   that    were    erroneous    and   coercive,
    including comments about potential sentences and advice that a
    trial might result in a more severe sentence.            However, a review of
    *
    Lewis had three Rule 11 hearings. The first two were aborted
    when Lewis decided not to plead guilty.
    - 2 -
    Lewis’s cites shows that these comments took place during Lewis’s
    aborted plea hearings.         While there appears to be nothing untoward
    in   the   court’s    attempts       to    make   sure   Lewis    understood     his
    sentencing exposure and options, any errors did not affect Lewis’s
    substantial rights, because he did not plead guilty and the plea
    agreements that had been negotiated were not accepted, even after
    the allegedly “coercive” comments.                Lewis points to no improper
    judicial comments or actions during his completed Rule 11 hearing,
    where he pled guilty without a plea agreement.
    Lewis additionally points to judicial comments during the
    hearing    on   his   motion    to    withdraw     his   guilty    plea    and   his
    sentencing.     Specifically, the court repeatedly labeled Lewis a
    “liar.”     Again, these statements could have had no effect on
    Lewis’s plea, which had already been accepted.               See United States
    v. Cannady, 
    283 F.3d 641
    , 644 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that there
    was no violation of Rule 11(c)(1) where court’s comments postdated
    the agreement of the parties).             Moreover, Lewis’s credibility was
    a material issue in the motion to withdraw hearing.                       Thus, the
    court was not only permitted, but required, to rule on whether his
    testimony was truthful. Accordingly, we conclude that any improper
    comments by the district court did not affect Lewis’s substantial
    rights.    Thus, there was no plain error below.
    Based on the foregoing, we affirm Lewis’s convictions.
    We deny Lewis’s motion to file a supplemental brief.                 We dispense
    - 3 -
    with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4633

Citation Numbers: 243 F. App'x 757

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/3/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023