US v. Ireshia Summer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00006-H-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999557858].. [14-4166]

Appeal: 14-4166

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRESHIA DONTE SUMMERS, a/k/a Eric Summers,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00006-H-2)

Submitted:

March 30, 2015

Decided:

April 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Renorda E. Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4166

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ireshia Donte Summers pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess stolen firearms and ammunition,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012) (Count One); possession
of

firearms

within

1000

feet

of

a

school,

and

aiding

and

abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A),
924, & 2 (2012) (Count Four); and possession of firearms and
ammunition

by

§§ 922(g)(1),

a

convicted

924

(2012)

felon,
(Count

in

violation

Six).

The

of

18

U.S.C.

district

court

sentenced Summers to 360 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the
Guidelines range, which reflected concurrent terms of 60 months
on Count One, 60 months on Count Four, and 360 months on Count
Six.
Summers’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether venue
was proper.

Summers filed a pro se supplemental brief that,

liberally construed, challenges the validity of his guilty plea
and asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *

For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In his pro se brief, Summers argues that he would not have
pled

guilty
*

but

for

defense

counsel’s

assurances

The Government elected not to file a brief.

2

that

his

Appeal: 14-4166

Doc: 44

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

federal sentence would not be enhanced based on conduct related
to the federal offenses for which charges were pending in state
court.

Because Summers did not move in the district court to

withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing for plain error.
517,

525

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

2002).

“[T]o

standard, [Summers] must show:

satisfy

the

plain

error

(1) an error was made; (2) the

error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights.”
United
2009).

States

v.

Massenburg,

564

F.3d

337,

342-43

(4th

Cir.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the

district court fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure in accepting Summers’ guilty plea.
Summers’ plea agreement contained no provisions concerning
his pending state charges and Summers stated under oath at the
plea hearing that his plea was not based on promises outside of
the plea agreement.

See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-

74

“clear

(1977)

(absent

and

convincing

evidence”

to

the

contrary, defendant is bound by statements made under oath at
guilty plea hearing).

We conclude that Summers is not entitled

to relief on his guilty plea challenge.
Counsel argues, in the Anders brief, that venue for Count
Four, possession of firearms and ammunition in a school zone,
and aiding and abetting, was not proper in the Eastern District
of North Carolina, because the offense occurred in the Middle
3

Appeal: 14-4166

Doc: 44

District

Filed: 04/02/2015

of

North

Pg: 4 of 6

Carolina.

By

pleading

guilty

without

reserving the right to challenge venue on appeal, Summers waived
any right to challenge venue in this Court.
v.

Bundy,

392

F.3d

641,

650

n.3

(4th

See United States

Cir.

2004)

(“Where

a

defendant who pled guilty presents on appeal an issue that he
did not even attempt to preserve by means of a conditional plea,
we

decline

to

entertain

the

appeal

on

the

ground

that

the

defendant’s unconditional plea waived that issue altogether.”);
United States v. Calderon, 243 F.3d 587, 590 (2d Cir. 2001)
(collecting

cases

and

explaining

that

“[v]enue

is

not

jurisdictional” and is waived by a “valid plea”).
Finally,

Summers

asserts

that

he

was

denied

effective

assistance of counsel at the plea stage and at sentencing.

As

stated above, he claims that he pled guilty based on counsel’s
promise

that

his

sentence

would

related state court charges.

not

be

enhanced

by

pending

He also contends that counsel was

ineffective at sentencing for failing to object to information
in the presentence report that was used to enhance his sentence.
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, Summers
must

show

that

constitutionally
was prejudicial.
(1984).
demonstrate

To

(1)

deficient

and

counsel’s
(2)

such

performance

deficient

was

performance

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

satisfy

that

trial

trial

the

performance

counsel’s
4

prong,

performance

Summers
fell

below

must
an

Appeal: 14-4166

Doc: 44

objective

Filed: 04/02/2015

standard

of

norms.

Id.

professional

Pg: 5 of 6

reasonableness
at

688.

The

under

prevailing

prejudice

prong

is

satisfied, within the context of a guilty plea, if Summers can
demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on going to trial.”

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears
on

the

face

of

the

record,

such

claims

are

not

generally

addressed on direct appeal, United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008), but rather should be raised in a
motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to
permit sufficient development of the record.

United States v.

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

Because the

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Summers’ convictions and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Summers, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Summers 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
5

Appeal: 14-4166

Doc: 44

representation.

Filed: 04/02/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Summers.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6