US v. Bynum, No. 05-4528 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4528 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES WILLIAM BYNUM, a/k/a Woo Bynum, a/k/a Budda Bynum, a/k/a Big E, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CR-04-823) Submitted: January 20, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Craig Brown, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James William Bynum pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (2000). imprisonment for 235 months. We Bynum was sentenced to affirm the conviction and sentence. Because the district court determined Bynum was responsible for 7,753 grams of cocaine base, Bynum was assigned a base offense level of thirty-eight. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2004). Additionally, the district court enhanced Bynum s offense level by two because his co-conspirator possessed a application firearm. of responsibility, a USSG See three-level Bynum s total § 2D1.1(b)(1). adjustment offense level for After acceptance was Bynum was assessed seven criminal history points. the of thirty-seven. This total included two points because the offense was committed while Bynum was on probation, see USSG § 4A1.1(d), and one point because the offense was committed less than two years after Bynum s release from a qualifying term of imprisonment, see USSG § 4A1.1(e). Bynum s resulting criminal history category of IV placed him within an advisory guideline range of 292 to 365 months. Bynum s counsel made numerous written objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, including objections to (1) the - 2 - minimum term of imprisonment being twenty years and (2) the drug weight attributed to Bynum. Though counsel acknowledged that the Government filed a notice of enhancement pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000), he argued that the statutory minimum was ten years as that was the district court s advisement during Bynum s Rule 11 hearing. The Probation Officer acknowledged that the district court did not advise Bynum of the enhanced statutory minimum under § 851 and, consequently, revised the presentence report to comport with the district court s advisement. counsel agreed attributed to to withdraw Bynum so his long two-point firearm enhancement. At sentencing, Bynum s objection as the to the Government drug weight conceded the As a result, Bynum s total offense level became thirty-five and, with a criminal history category of IV, his advisory guideline range was 235 to 293 months. The district court adopted the presentence report, as revised, and sentenced Bynum to imprisonment for 235 months. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the district court erred in its Rule 11 colloquy when it misstated the mandatory minimum sentence. Though counsel contends the district court erred, he concedes that such error did not affect Bynum s substantial rights. Bynum was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected not to file an answering brief. - 3 - Because Bynum did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, his alleged Rule 11 error is reviewed by this Court for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). We may notice an error that was not preserved . . . only if the defendant can demonstrate (1) that an error occurred, (2) that it was plain error, and (3) that the error was material or affected the defendant s substantial rights. Id. at its 524. It is clear that the district court erred in recitation of the statutory minimum and that such error was plain. However, the presentence report was revised to comport with the district court s Rule 11 advisement. Furthermore, the district court s sentence was both at the low end of the guideline range and below the proposed § 851 enhanced statutory minimum. Therefore, we conclude Bynum s substantial rights were not affected. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly we affirm Bynum s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because - 4 - the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 5 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
