United States v. Sebastien Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2023
• Docket: 23-4258
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4258 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEBASTIEN M. MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00003-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: L. Richard Walker, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher Lee Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., Sarah Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4258 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Sebastien M. Moore appeals his conviction and the 15-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to assaulting a correctional

officer involving physical contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Moore’s counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Moore’s guilty plea

was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Although he was informed of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, Moore has not done so. The Government has declined

to file a response brief or to move to enforce the appeal waiver contained in Moore’s plea

agreement. We affirm.

Because Moore did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we

review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622

(4th Cir. 2016). “Under the plain error standard, [we] ‘will correct an unpreserved error if

(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and

(4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.’” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United

States v. Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F.3d 205, 212 (4th Cir. 2014)). In the guilty plea context,

a defendant establishes that an error affected his substantial rights by demonstrating “‘a

reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.’” United

States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 608 (2013) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez,

542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4258 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in

which it informs the defendant of, and determines the defendant understands, the rights he

is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the applicable

maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court also must ensure

that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in

the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

Although the district court failed to explicitly advise Moore that his right to

appointed counsel extended to every stage of the criminal proceedings or that there could

be immigration consequences, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(D), (O), nothing in the record

suggests that these minor errors affected Moore’s substantial rights. Moreover, there is no

indication that, but for the court’s minor omissions, Moore would not have entered his

guilty plea. See Davila, 569 U.S. at 608. We therefore conclude that Moore entered his

plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that a factual basis supported the plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This

court requires that counsel inform Moore, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Moore 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 Moore. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4258 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED