United States of America v. Parnell L. Moore, a/k/a Pete, a/k/a P

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PARNELL L. MOORE, a/k/a Pete, a/k/a P,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00030-JLK-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abram J. Pafford, PAFFORD, LAWRENCE & CHILDRESS, PLLC,
Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United
States Attorney, Donald Wolthuis, Assistant United States
Attorney, Drew J.M. Bradylyons, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Parnell L. Moore pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to three counts of distributing cocaine base
(“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2012) (Counts One, Four, and Five), three counts of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2012) (Counts Two, Six, and Eight), and two counts of
using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime and
possessing the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (Counts Three
and Seven). The district court sentenced Moore to concurrent
terms of 60 months’ imprisonment on Counts One, Two, Four
through Six, and Eight. In addition, the court sentenced Moore
to terms of 60 months and 300 months on Count Three and Seven,
the minimum imprisonment terms required by statute for these
counts, to be served consecutively to each other and to the
concurrent sentences on the other counts. Thus, Moore’s total
sentence was 420 months’ imprisonment.
Moore has timely appealed. He contends that, as a
result of an error by the district court at the plea hearing,
his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Because Moore did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge is reviewed for plain

-- 2 of 5 --

3
error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th
Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Moore must show that:
(1) an error was made; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the
error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if Moore makes this showing,
correction of the error lies within our discretion, which we
will not exercise unless the error “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and
alterations omitted).
Under Rule 11(b)(1)(I) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a district court is required, before
accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, to advise the defendant of
and ensure that he understands any applicable mandatory minimum
penalty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(I). To satisfy this
obligation, the court must “clearly advise” the defendant of the
applicable minimum penalty. United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218,
223 (4th Cir. 1994).
In this case, Moore was subject to a minimum prison
term of five years on Count Three and a consecutive minimum term
of twenty-five years on Count Seven, both consecutive to any
other term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Although
the Government recited the statutory maximum terms for each

-- 3 of 5 --

4
count and the mandatory minimum terms for Counts Three and Seven
at the Rule 11 hearing, the district court did not personally
advise Moore of these mandatory minimum terms or probe his
understanding of them.
Even if the district court’s omission amounted to
error that was plain, Moore is not entitled to relief because
the error did not impact his substantial rights. Cf. United
States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995). An error
impacts a defendant’s substantial rights if it is so prejudicial
as to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Martinez, 277 F.3d
at 532. In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this
standard by showing that he would not have pled guilty but for
the Rule 11 error. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.
74, 83 (2004); Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532. Here, Moore was made
aware of the mandatory minimum prison terms at least twice
before he pled guilty: once when the Government recited the
mandatory minimum and the maximum prison terms on each count at
the arraignment and again at the plea hearing prior to the entry
of his guilty plea. We therefore conclude that Moore cannot
credibly assert that he was unaware of the mandatory minimum
sentences prior to his guilty plea. Accordingly, we discern no
plain error.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 4 of 5 --

5
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --