US v. Charles McCoy

Filing 920100618

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD MCCOY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cr-00404-JFA-1)

Submitted:

May 26, 2010

Decided:

June 18, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Charles McCoy appeals from his conviction and

180-month sentence following a guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). McCoy's counsel filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for

appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting is McCoy's guilty In his plea, pro and se of

whether

McCoy's

sentence McCoy

reasonable.

supplemental counsel.

brief,

alleges

ineffective

assistance

We affirm. During McCoy's plea hearing, in compliance with Rule

11, the district court properly informed McCoy of the rights he was forfeiting as a result of his plea and the nature of the charges and penalties he faced, found that McCoy was competent and entering his plea voluntarily, and determined there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. establishes McCoy knowingly and Therefore, the record entered into his

voluntarily

guilty plea with a full understanding of its consequences and there was no error in the district court's acceptance of his plea. McCoy reasonable. also questions whether his sentence is

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, 2

applying

an

abuse

of

discretion

standard.

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the

This review requires appellate and the substantive

procedural Id.

reasonableness of a sentence. sentence is procedurally

In determining whether a this court must assess

reasonable,

whether the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the

selected sentence.

Id.; see also United States v. Lynn, 592

F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ("[A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence."). errors. Here, we find no procedural

Although the district court's explanation for McCoy's

180-month sentence was brief, we find it adequate in view of the fact that both parties requested that sentence. We next review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. McCoy was sentenced to the mandatory minimum terms of Accordingly, the

imprisonment under the statutes of conviction.

district court had no discretion to impose a lower sentence, see United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005), and McCoy's sentence is per se reasonable, see United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). Finally, McCoy's pro se claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance must be considered in a post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 3

2009), unless counsel's alleged deficiencies conclusively appear on the record. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435

(4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). the record that Because we find no conclusive evidence on rendered ineffective assistance, we

counsel

decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform McCoy, in writing, of his right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further

If McCoy 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

representation.

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 McCoy. facts and legal before

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4