US v. Lavon Caldwell, No. 13-4180 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4180 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAVON RICHARD CALDWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00248-RDB-1) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven H. Levin, LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Paul E. Budlow, P. Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: On trial, what Lavon violation Richard of aggravated would 18 § 1028A(a)(1) (2012). been Caldwell U.S.C. identity have § pled 1344 theft, the district fourth guilty (2012), in day to and violation of a jury bank fraud, in four counts of of 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Caldwell to ninety-six months imprisonment. that the court On appeal, Caldwell contends impermissibly engaged in plea negotiations by insisting that he relinquish his right to file a Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) request as a condition to the court accepting his guilty plea. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) prohibits the district This prohibition diminishes plea; court it the from participating serv[es] possibility protects against three of in plea principal judicial unfairness interests: coercion and negotiations. of partiality a it guilty in the judicial process; and it eliminates the misleading impression that the judge is an advocate for the agreement rather than a neutral arbiter. United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453, 460 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Caldwell did not make this objection in the district court or attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we review for plain error. Id. at 462. To prevail on his claim that the 2 district court Caldwell must improperly participated demonstrate that the in plea court s negotiations, participation was error, that the error was plain, that the error affected his substantial would rights, seriously reputation of and that affect judicial the a refusal fairness, proceedings. to notice integrity, Id.; see the or error public Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013) (discussing plain error standard). Assuming, without deciding, that the district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations by conditioning its acceptance of Caldwell s guilty plea on his waiver of his FOIA rights and, thus, committed plain error, we conclude that Caldwell has failed to affected his substantial demonstrate rights. that A the court s defendant s error substantial rights are affected if we determine that the error influenced [his] decision to plead guilty and impaired his ability to evaluate with eyes open the direct attendant risks of accepting criminal responsibility. United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court s error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). 3 Here, Caldwell asserts only that his substantial rights were affected by the district court s error because, but for the court s insistence that he waive his FOIA rights, he would have been permitted to file such a request. He does not, however, assert on appeal that he would not have entered his guilty plea but for the error, nor is there any indication in the district court s record guilty but for the error. that he would not have pled Thus, Caldwell is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny Caldwell s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
