US v. Sandra Elliott
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [998838121-2]. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00383-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998886769].. [11-5188]
Appeal: 11-5188
Doc: 28
Filed: 07/02/2012
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SANDRA ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1)
Submitted:
June 22, 2012
Decided:
July 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ronnie M. Mitchell, THE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-5188
Doc: 28
Filed: 07/02/2012
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Elliott pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to health care fraud, and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1347 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) and 18
U.S.C. § 2 (2006).
The district court sentenced Elliott to 120
months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Elliott argues that she was
denied effective of assistance of counsel at sentencing and that
her sentence was unreasonable.
The Government seeks to enforce the appellate waiver
provision
of
the
Elliott’s appeal.
plea
agreement
and
has
moved
to
dismiss
In response, Elliott asserts that the issues
she raises on appeal are outside the scope of the waiver.
A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the
right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006).
Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).
United States v.
An appellate waiver
must be “the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.”
United States v. Broughton-Jones,
71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
We review de novo whether a defendant has
effectively waived her right to appeal.
United States v. Marin,
961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992).
In her plea agreement, Elliott agreed to waive her
right to appeal a within-Guidelines sentence, but reserved her
right to raise on appeal issues of ineffective assistance of
2
Appeal: 11-5188
Doc: 28
Filed: 07/02/2012
Pg: 3 of 4
counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.
Elliott does not challenge
the validity of her waiver of appellate rights, but contends
that the issues she raises on appeal are outside the scope of
the waiver.
As the district court imposed a sentence within the
Guidelines range established at sentencing, Elliott’s challenge
to her sentence falls within the scope of the waiver and may not
be
reviewed
by
this
court.
However,
Elliott’s
claim
that
counsel was ineffective at sentencing is outside the scope of
the waiver and is subject to appellate review.
Nevertheless,
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in
a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion rather than on
direct
appeal,
unless
the
appellate
demonstrates ineffective assistance.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
not
conclusively
show
that
record
conclusively
United States v. Benton,
Because the record here does
counsel
was
constitutionally
ineffective, we decline to review this claim on direct appeal.
Accordingly,
we
grant
the
dismiss in part and deny it in part.
Elliott’s
district
facts
sentence
court.
and
legal
and
We
otherwise
dispense
contentions
3
motion
to
We dismiss the appeal of
affirm
with
are
Government’s
oral
the
judgment
argument
adequately
of
the
because
the
presented
in
the
Appeal: 11-5188
Doc: 28
materials
before
Filed: 07/02/2012
the
court
Pg: 4 of 4
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?