US v. Martin Hughe


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998385482-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998323497-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00024-jpj-mfu-35 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998459572] [10-6417]

Download PDF
US v. Martin Hughe Doc. 0 Case: 10-6417 Document: 14 Date Filed: 11/04/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6417 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTIN AVERY HUGHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-mfu-35) Submitted: September 21, 2010 Decided: November 4, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Avery Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6417 Document: 14 Date Filed: 11/04/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Martin Avery Hughes seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motions to dismiss the indictment and to suppress evidence, filed after the court sentenced Hughes to 262 months of imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine (2006). and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on Hughes' waiver of his appellate rights in his plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Hughes knowingly and voluntarily exception waived of his right claim to appeal. that his Moreover, attorney with the Hughes' rendered ineffective assistance, the issues Hughes seeks to appeal fall squarely within the terms of the appellate waiver to which he agreed. rendered With respect to Hughes' claim that his trial counsel ineffective does not assistance, conclusively we conclude on that the ineffective record and, See assistance appear therefore, decline to consider this claim on direct review. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal in part, affirm Hughes' conviction, and deny Hughes' motion for transcripts at government expense. oral argument because the facts 2 and legal We dispense with contentions are Case: 10-6417 Document: 14 Date Filed: 11/04/2010 Page: 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

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?