US v. Charles McCoy
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
May 26, 2010
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the
This review requires appellate and the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. sentence is procedurally
In determining whether a this court must assess
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
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
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
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
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?