US v. Chakiris Ramsey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998614178]. [10-4174]

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHAKIRIS LAGEORGE RAMSEY, a/k/a Chakiris Legeorge Ramsey,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-5)

Submitted:

June 9, 2011

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

June 17, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph
R.
Conte,
LAW OFFICES
OF
J.R.
CONTE,
P.L.L.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Chakiris Lageorge Ramsey appeals his conviction after
a guilty plea and 147-month sentence for one count of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and
cocaine

base

(2006);

one

in

violation

count

of

of

21

possession

U.S.C.
with

§§ 841(b)(1)(A),

intent

to

846

distribute

a

quantity of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C) (2006); and one count of using and carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006).

On appeal, counsel for Ramsey

has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether the district court complied
with

the

mandates

of

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

11,

whether

Ramsey’s

sentence was reasonable, whether Ramsey executed a valid waiver
of

his

appellate

ineffective.

rights,

and

whether

trial

counsel

was

The Government has elected not to file a brief,

and although Ramsey was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he has not done so.

I.

We affirm.

Appeal Waiver

Counsel argues in the Anders brief that Ramsey validly
waived his right to appeal.

The Government, however, has not

filed a brief in this court invoking the appellate waiver or
2

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

moved to dismiss this appeal.
appeal

waiver,

review.

this

court

Page: 3 of 7

Thus, despite the existence of an
will

conduct

the

required

Anders

See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271

(4th Cir. 2007) (noting that if the government does nothing in
response to an Anders brief in a case where the appellant has
waived his right to appeal, the court will perform the required
Anders review); see also United States v. Metzger, 3 F.3d 756,
757-58 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that the government’s failure to
assert an appeal waiver as a bar to the appeal constitutes a
waiver of reliance on the appeal waiver).

II.

Adequacy of the Rule 11 Hearing

Because Ramsey did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

reviewed for plain error.
517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).
show:

(1)

an

error

was

To establish plain error, he “must

made;

(2)

the

error

(3) the error affects substantial rights.”
Massenburg,

564

F.3d

337,

unpreserved Rule 11 error).
lies

within

[this

342-43

is

plain;

and

United States v.

(4th Cir. 2009)

(reviewing

“The decision to correct the error

court’s]

discretion,

and

[the

court]

exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects
the

fairness,

integrity

or

public

3

reputation

of

judicial

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

proceedings.”

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 4 of 7

Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The defendant bears the burden of showing plain error.
We have reviewed the record and find no error.

The

district court went to some length to explain how the sentence
would

be

calculated

and

the

rights

that

Ramsey

abandoned

by

pleading guilty, and to establish a factual basis for the plea.
Because Ramsey’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by
an

adequate

factual

basis,

we

conclude

that

the

plea

was

properly accepted by the district court.

III.

Sentence

Ramsey’s original advisory Guidelines range was 168 to
210

months,

pursuant

to

plus
18

a

mandatory

U.S.C.

five

§ 924(e)

year

(2006),

consecutive
because

convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
moved

for

a

assistance.

downward

departure

due

to

sentence

Ramsey

was

The Government

Ramsey’s

substantial

The court granted the motion, and Ramsey’s revised

advisory Guidelines range was 108 to 135 months plus the five
year mandatory consecutive sentence.

The district court imposed

a sentence of eighty-seven months plus five years, for a total
of 147 months — significantly below the low end of Ramsey’s
revised advisory Guidelines range.
An

appellate

court

reviews

a

sentence

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
4

for

Gall v.

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 5 of 7

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
consideration

of

both

the

reasonableness of a sentence.

This review requires

procedural

Id.

and

substantive

First, the court must assess

whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented

by

the

selected sentence.

parties,

and

sufficiently

explained

the

Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592

F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation
must accompany every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same).

An extensive explanation

is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied
“‘that

[the

arguments

district

and

has

a

court]

reasoned

has
basis

legal decisionmaking authority.’”

considered
for

the

parties’

exercising

[its]

own

United States v. Engle, 592

F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010).
While

we

note

that

the

district

court

imposed

a

sentence with little to no explanation, we decline to notice the
error.

Counsel, in the Anders brief, recognizes that the court

did not explain its sentence, but nevertheless suggests that the
sentence should be affirmed.
record, and we agree.
from

his

original

We have independently reviewed the

Ramsey received a significant departure

Guidelines

range

and

received

a

sentence

nearly two years less than the low end of his revised Guidelines
5

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

range.

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 6 of 7

In these circumstances, we conclude that the sentence

was procedurally reasonable.
Turning

to

the

substantive

reasonableness

of

the

sentence, this court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a
properly

calculated

Guidelines

range

is

reasonable.

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
sentence
range.

was

considerably

lower

than

his

advisory

United
Ramsey’s

Guidelines

To the extent that the Anders brief seeks review of the

extent of the downward departure, this court lacks jurisdiction
United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324

to hear such a claim.
(4th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly,

the

sentence

was

substantively

reasonable.

IV.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Counsel
ineffective.

next

Claims

addresses
of

whether

ineffective

trial

counsel

assistance

generally are not cognizable on direct appeal.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).

of

was

counsel

United States v.

Rather, to allow for

adequate development of the record, a defendant generally must
bring

his

motion.

claims
Id.;

(4th Cir. 1994).
cognizable
establishes

on

in

a

United

28

States

However,
direct

ineffective

U.S.C.A.
v.

§ 2255
Hoyle,

ineffective

appeal

if

the

assistance.
6

(West
33

Supp.

F.3d

assistance
record
United

2010)

415,

418

claims

are

conclusively
States

v.

Appeal: 10-4174

Document: 77

Date Filed: 06/17/2011

Page: 7 of 7

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at
295.
We

have

ineffective

reviewed

assistance

record’s face.

of

the

record,

counsel

is

and
not

we

conclude

conclusive

on

that
the

Thus, this claim is not cognizable 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 Ramsey, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Ramsey

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

for

be

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Ramsey.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

7