US v. Tracey Dougla
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:11-cr-00520-CMC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998868425].. [11-5143]
Appeal: 11-5143
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/05/2012
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRACEY DOUGLAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:11-cr-00520-CMC-2)
Submitted:
May 21, 2012
Decided:
June 5, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
Julius
Ness
Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-5143
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/05/2012
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Tracey
Douglas
pled
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
possess
with
intent
to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
prison.
He now appeals.
accordance
claiming
Douglas was sentenced to 240 months in
with
that
Anders
defense
His attorney has filed a brief in
v.
California,
counsel
was
368
U.S.
ineffective.
738
(1967),
Douglas
has
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues.
We
affirm.
I
Douglas contends that counsel was ineffective because
he allegedly did not advise Douglas that, in accordance with the
plea agreement, the United States would not move for a downward
departure
(2011).
are
not
under
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
§ 5K1.1
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally
cognizable
conclusively
on
establishes
direct
appeal
counsel’s
performance” and resulting prejudice.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir 2008).
unless
“objectively
the
record
unreasonable
United States v. Benton,
Rather, to allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant ordinarily should bring
his ineffective assistance claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) motion.
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214,
2
Appeal: 11-5143
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/05/2012
216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
Pg: 3 of 4
After reviewing the record, especially
the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude
that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the
record.
We
therefore
decline
to
address
the
merits
of
the
claim.
II
In his pro se brief, Douglas argues that his guilty
plea was unknowing because the district court did not comply
with the requirements of Rule 11.
More specifically, Douglas
maintains that the district court did not adequately ascertain
that he understood the constitutional rights he was waiving by
pleading guilty.
Because Douglas did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, our review is for plain error.
See
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).
We discern no such error in this case.
Having considered the
transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that the court
ascertained
that
Douglas
understood
that he waived by pleading guilty.
the
various
trial
rights
Additionally, although the
court did not mention its obligation to consider the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) when imposing sentence, see
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(M), the court otherwise fully complied
with the Rule.
The omission did not affect Douglas’ substantial
3
Appeal: 11-5143
Doc: 27
Filed: 06/05/2012
Pg: 4 of 4
rights, particularly in light of his receiving the statutory
minimum sentence of 240 months.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)
(2006).
III
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Douglas’s conviction and sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Douglas, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Douglas requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Douglas.
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
4
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?