US v. Keoki Harris, No. 09-4748 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-01221-GRA-1) Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell W. Mace, III, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keoki Harris pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more ยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). in prison. violated He Fed. appeals, R. Crim. cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. He was sentenced to 188 months contending P. unknowing and involuntary. of 11 and that that the his district guilty court plea was We affirm. Harris claims that the district court violated Rule 11 because the court advised him that his advisory Guidelines range would be correct 151-188 range months. was This 188-235 range proved months. The erroneous; mistake did the not constitute a violation of Rule 11, however, for there is no requirement in the Rule that a defendant be provided with a forecast of his advisory Guidelines range. Rather, under Rule 11(b)(1)(H)-(I), the district court must inform the defendant of, and ensure that he understands, the statutory minimum and maximum sentences that he faces. compliance with Rule 11, [we] In reviewing the adequacy of accord deference to the trial court s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, with the defendant. 116 (4th Cir. minimum and several times, 1991). maximum and During Harris sentences Harris that he represented 2 Rule 11 faced to the colloquy, were court the mentioned that he understood. We conclude that the court complied with this requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Harris argues that he relied on the district court s erroneous deciding prediction to plead of his guilty advisory and unknowing and involuntary. that his Guidelines plea range was in therefore Because Harris did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Rule 11 hearing are reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). establish plain error, [Harris] must show that To an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir 2007). requirements, correction of Even if Harris satisfies these the error remains within our discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. id. See (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Harris cannot make the required showing. During the plea colloquy, the court asked, Do you understand that you could get anywhere between 151 months to 188 months? Harris replied, months Yes, Your Honor. falls within this range. Harris sentence of 188 He cannot seriously claim that the error in forecasting his advisory Guidelines range affected his 3 substantial rights when he received a sentence within that range. We accordingly affirm. 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.
