US v. Kunta Redd
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KUNTA KENTA REDD, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1)
June 8, 2010
June 24, 2010
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marilyn G. Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kunta Kenta Redd pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court calculated Redd's advisory imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007) at 262 to 327 months and sentenced Redd to 324 months' imprisonment. On
appeal, Redd's counsel has filed an Anders * brief stating that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Redd has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which The Government has moved to
he, too, challenges his sentence.
dismiss the appeal of Redd's sentence based on Redd's waiver of appellate rights. A We dismiss in part and affirm in part. may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Poindexter, Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
(4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Redd knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. We therefore grant the Government's motion to dismiss Although appellate of Redd's United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168
in part and dismiss Redd's appeal of his sentence. Redd's review, appeal the waiver insulates not his sentence our from
conviction pursuant to Anders. Redd guilty plea, moved and, by in so the district court to the withdraw issue of his the
adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing.
See United States Our review of
v. Hairston, 522 F.3d 336, 341 (4th Cir. 2008).
the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing leads us to conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in accepting Redd's ensure guilty that plea. Although the district court in failed to a
sentence to consider possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, conclude as required this by Fed. did R. Crim. affect P. 11(b)(1)(M), we
substantial See Fed. R.
rights and therefore disregard it as harmless. 3
Crim. P. 11(h); Hairston, 522 F.3d at 341.
The court otherwise
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Redd's guilty plea, ensuring that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Redd entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). With respect to the district court's denial of Redd's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we review that decision for abuse of discretion. (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237
In determining whether a defendant has met his
burden, six factors must be considered: (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or otherwise involuntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between entry of the plea and filing of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close assistance of counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the [G]overnment; and (6) whether withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). An appropriately a strong United conducted Rule that 11 proceeding, plea is however, final 1389, and 1394
presumption States v.
(4th Cir. 1992).
Here, the Rule 11 proceeding was appropriately
conducted, and Redd's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. We conclude that Redd did not credibly assert his legal
innocence and that the motion to withdraw, filed nearly a year after Redd entered his guilty plea, was untimely. It is
undisputed that Redd had the close assistance of trial counsel. Finally, allowing Redd to withdraw his guilty plea would have prejudiced the Government and inconvenienced the district court. We are therefore satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Redd's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Dyess, 478 F.3d at 237. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues remaining for appeal. We therefore affirm Redd's conviction. This court
requires that counsel inform Redd, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further
If Redd 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
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
was served on Redd. facts and legal before
contentions the court
decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
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?