US v. James Edwards
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:05-cr-00179-PJM-5)
June 5, 2009
June 23, 2009
Before KING and Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary E. Proctor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: James Edwards appeals the district court's criminal
judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Edwards challenges the
district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and asserts in that he received his ineffective to assistance enter a of
Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The record does not conclusively establish that
Edwards' trial counsel's performance was deficient and that but for counsel's deficient performance, Edwards would not have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial. Thus, Edwards' claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in this direct appeal. Cir. 1997). Review of the signed written plea agreement, the United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th
transcript from the thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the transcript from the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and
sentencing, and application of the criteria set forth in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991), indicate Edwards' plea was knowing and voluntary, and thus is final and binding. Consequently, we find that the district court did not 2
abuse its discretion by denying Edwards' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral 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?