US v. Dion Montreal Coxton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DION MONTREAL COXTON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00248)
October 20, 2008
November 19, 2008
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Dion Montreal Coxton was convicted of: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana; and using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 150 months. appeals. He was
His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. filed a pro se brief raising additional issues. Coxton has
In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the district court improperly denied Coxton's motion to suppress statements made to the police because Coxton received inadequate warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). When considering
a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the court's factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. (4th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481
Here, the court found that Coxton was properly advised of his Miranda rights on March 11, 2004, and was advised the following day that he "still had Miranda rights." These
findings are not clearly erroneous.
They are supported by the
testimony of Detective Paul Conner and Officer Scott Sherwood, which the court credited over Coxton's testimony. 2 Further, we
find no infirmity in the court's legal conclusion that Coxton voluntarily, prior to intelligently, a statement Miranda and on knowingly March 12. waived his rights he was
earlier still applied, the same detective questioned Coxton on March 11 and March 12, Coxton did not hesitate to make his statement, and there were no unusually intimidating or coercive circumstances involved. Cf. United States v. Pruden, 398 F.3d
241, 244-47 (3rd Cir. 2005). The claims raised in Coxton's pro se brief lack merit. First, his claim that counsel was ineffective is not cognizable on direct appeal because ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. He should raise this claim, See United Cir. 1999). See
if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th
Second, we discern no plain error in a license checkpoint.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-43 (1993) (stating standard of review); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37-38 (2000) licenses ("roadblock and with the purpose of verifying would be
permissible"). We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. 3
Accordingly, we affirm.
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy of We dispense with oral
the motion was served on the client.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?