US v. Robert Steed, No. 09-4694 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4694 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT C. STEED, a/k/a Rob, a/k/a Robert Sneed, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:06-cr-00960-SB-1) Submitted: February 4, 2011 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, March 21, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicole N. Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Peter T. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert C. Steed pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C). Based on a prior felony drug conviction, Steed was sentenced to the statutory minimum twenty year sentence. the following: (1) the district On appeal, Steed claims court failed to ascertain during the Rule 11 hearing whether he understood that there was a twenty-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence; (2) his sentence was improperly enhanced because the Government did not provide timely notice under 18 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) and the court failed to inquire if he wanted to challenge the predicate conviction in the § 851 notice; (3) he had insufficient time to review the Presentence Investigation Report; and even if the alleged errors alone are insufficient to provide relief, (4) under the cumulative error doctrine the combined effect of the errors affected his substantial rights. We affirm. Because Steed failed to raise any of these challenges to the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 2 593, 598 (4th Cir. See 2003); United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Steed] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial rights. 249 (4th Cir. United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 2007). Even if Steed makes this three-part showing, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) United States v. (internal quotation to that marks omitted). We conclude Steed has substantial rights were violated. failed show his It is clear from the record that Steed was giving sufficient notice of the fact that his sentence would be increased based on a prior felony drug conviction and that as a result of the increase, his statutory minimum sentence was twenty years imprisonment. He has failed to show that there was any error in using the prior conviction to enhance his sentence or that there was some other error or defect with the Furthermore, we rights violated were resulting conclude statutory Steed when he did not claimed minimum show he his did sentence. substantial not presentence investigation report before sentencing. see the We further conclude that the cumulative error doctrine is of no help to 3 Steed. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument the conviction because the and facts sentence. 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.
