US v. Melvin Holden, No. 10-5009 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN REGINALD HOLDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00050-FL-1) Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George B. Currin, CURRIN & CURRIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Reginald Holden pled guilty to possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) district court departure (2006). granted the Government s Holden s Holden, motion downward sentenced Holden to a term of fifty months imprisonment. On argues that, substantial for the and Holden upon sentencing assistance, appeal, based Before upon execution of the plea agreement, statements he made one year before he executed the plea agreement statements to became enhance protected his and sentence that based the upon use the of his number of firearms involved in the crime constituted a breach of the plea agreement. He also asserts that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the use of the statements. We affirm. Because Holden did not object to the use of his pre-plea statements at sentencing, we review for plain error whether the Government breached the plea agreement. United States v. Lewis, 633 F.3d 262, 267 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review). To establish plain error, Holden must demonstrate the existence of (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the defendant s substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 2 United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640, 645 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428 (2009)). When, as here, the parties dispute the interpretation of language in principles. the plea agreement, we apply basic contract Lewis, 633 F.3d at 269; United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993). [W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can consideration be [to said to plead be part guilty], of the such inducement promise must or be Lewis, 633 F.3d at 269 (quoting Santobello v. New fulfilled. York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)). The government is only bound, however, by the promises that were actually made in inducing a guilty plea. holds the Id. In analyzing a plea agreement, this court government responsibility than the . . . to defendant ambiguities in plea agreements. . a greater . for . degree imprecisions of or Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the Government did not breach the plea agreement. statements shall The agreement provided that incriminating not be used Guidelines range, except Guidelines Manual § 1B1.8 permits consideration of to as determine provided (2003). information 3 Holden s by U.S. Section that was advisory Sentencing 1B1.8, known however, to the government prior to entering into the cooperation agreement. USSG § 1B1.8(b)(1). signed the plea Here, more agreement, than he told one year before authorities involvement in the sale of four handguns. Holden about his Thus, the use of Holden s pre-plea statements at sentencing did not violate the plea agreement, and Holden fails to demonstrate error plain or otherwise. Turning claim, the objection record to sentencing. the to the ineffective indicates use of that assistance counsel Holden s had of no pre-plea counsel meritorious statements at Holden therefore has failed to show, as he must, attorney error that is evident from the face of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard). We therefore decline to address this claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
