United States of America v. Tamarlo Dennell Hall, a/k/a Tomarlo Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAMARLO DENNELL HALL, a/k/a Tomarlo Hall,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00288-RJC-DSC-1)
Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: June 27, 2022
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J.
King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tamarlo Dennell Hall pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Hall to 72 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Hall
argues that his guilty plea is invalid because he was not informed of each element of the
offense during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. We affirm.
Because Hall neither objected during the Rule 11 proceeding nor moved to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the validity of his plea for plain
error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). To prevail under the
plain error standard, Hall “must demonstrate not only that the district court plainly erred,
but also that this error affected his substantial rights.” Id. at 816. After reviewing the
record, we conclude that Hall has not made such a showing. See Greer v. United States,
141 S. Ct. 2090, 2100 (2021); see also United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 197-98 (4th
Cir. 2021) (explaining government is not required to prove defendant knew he was
prohibited from possessing firearm to convict under § 922(g)).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --