US v. Steven Hall, No. 08-5206 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN JAMES HALL, a/k/a Contourimpco, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00015-LHT-1) Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: May 6, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven James Hall pled guilty, without the benefit of a written plea agreement, to transmitting child pornography via a computer § 2252(a)(1), pornography (Counts 1-3), in (b)(1) (West Supp. computer (Count via a violation of 2009); 4), 18 U.S.C.A. receiving in violation child of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) (West Supp. 2009); and possession of child pornography § 2252(a)(4), (b)(2) (Count (West 5), Supp. in violation 2009). of The 18 U.S.C.A. district court sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment on Counts 1-4 and a concurrent 120-month term on Count 5. On appeal, Hall s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), issues stating for that, appeal in but his view, questioning there are whether no meritorious Hall voluntarily entered his plea in light of Hall s claim that he was not guilty of the charges. Hall has filed a pro se supplemental brief. 1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Counsel suggests that Hall did not voluntarily enter his guilty plea. belie his claim. However, Hall s statements at the plea hearing See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 1 In his pro se brief, Hall contends that the delay between his arrest and arraignment violated the Speedy Trial Act and that Counts 3 and 4 of the indictment failed to establish an interstate nexus. Our careful review of the record leads us to conclude that Hall is not entitled to relief on these claims. 2 (1977); Fields v. Attorney Gen., 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992) ( Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a defendant is bound by the representations he makes under oath during a plea colloquy. ). Moreover, the magistrate judge and the district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hall s guilty plea and ensured that Hall entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Hall s convictions. Finally, we held Hall s case in abeyance for our decision in United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010), regarding the adequacy of the district court s explanation of the chosen sentence. 2 error. We have reviewed this issue for plain Id. at 579-80. To establish plain error, [Hall] must show that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial rights. Id. at 577. If Hall establishes these requirements, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, proceedings. integrity Id. or public (internal reputation quotation 2 marks of judicial and citation We note that, when sentencing Hall, the district court did not have the benefit of our most recent sentencing decisions. 3 omitted). committed Even assuming that the district court in this case clear error with regard to the sufficiency of the explanation for the chosen sentence, Hall nevertheless received exactly the sentence he requested -- a sentence at the bottom of the range authorized by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, Hall has not demonstrated on appeal that the error had a prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. Id. at 580. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for any meritorious issues and have found none. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. was served on this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof the client. We dispense 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
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.
