US v. Andre Harper, No. 15-4167 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4167 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE MICHAEL HARPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:14-cr-00045-RGD-LRL-1) Submitted: October 27, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia; Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Regina Sykes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Michael Harper appeals the district court’s judgment after pleading guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2012) counterfeited (2012). and two securities counts in of possessing violation of uttering U.S.C. 18 and § 513(a) Harper’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Harper’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary where he contends that the district court plainly erred under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E). This court notified Harper of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he has not done so. We affirm. “[F]or a guilty plea to be valid, the Constitution imposes ‘the minimum requirement that [the] plea be expression of [the defendant’s] own choice.’” the voluntary United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)). “It must reflect ‘a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’” v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 Id. (quoting North Carolina (1970)). “In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts look to the totality of defendant’s the circumstances solemn surrounding declaration 2 of guilt [it], a granting the presumption of truthfulness.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In federal cases, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “governs the duty of the trial judge before accepting a guilty (1969). plea.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n.5 Rule 11 “requires a judge to address a defendant about to enter a plea of guilty, to ensure that he understands the law of his crime in relation to the facts of his case, as well as his rights as a criminal defendant.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62 (2002). We “accord deference to the trial court’s decision best as to how to conduct the mandated colloquy.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, a guilty plea may be knowingly and intelligently made based on detailed information received before the plea hearing. See id. at 117; see also Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005) (trial court may rely on counsel’s assurance that the defendant was properly informed of the elements of the crime). When a defendant does not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review any claims that the court erred at his guilty plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). It is the defendant’s burden to show (1) error; (2) that the error was plain; (3) that the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) that we should exercise our discretion to notice the error. 3 See id. at 529, 532. To show that the error affects substantial rights, he “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Harper fails to show plain error that affects his substantial rights, and that his totality guilty guilty of was plea the a was knowing circumstances. voluntary and and voluntary Harper’s intelligent decision choice under to among the plead the alternative courses of action open to him. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we This court requires that counsel inform Harper, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harper requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Harper. 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.
