US v. Morgan Spark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00073-RLV-DSC-15 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704474].. [14-4800]

Appeal: 14-4800

Doc: 51

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MORGAN LEWIS SPARKS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00073-RLV-DSC-15)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Amy E.
Ray,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Asheville,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4800

Doc: 51

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant
guilty

to

to

a

plea

conspiracy

distribute,

and

agreement,

to

Morgan

distribute,

manufacture

Lewis

possess

Sparks

with

methamphetamine,

pled

intent
21

to

U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012), and possession of a firearm during
and

in

relation

to

§ 924(c) (2012).

a

drug

trafficking

offense,

18

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Sparks to the

mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment on the
conspiracy

offense

firearm charge.
arguing

that

and

a

consecutive

60-month

term

on

the

Sparks appeals, challenging his sentence and

trial

counsel

was

ineffective

for

failing

to

challenge the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
Sparks seeks to challenge his sentence, arguing that the
evidence

was

insufficient
of

determination

to

weight

the

drug

support

offense level for sentencing.

used

the
to

district
compute

court’s
his

base

In the plea agreement, Sparks

waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence except in
the case of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct.
Because

Sparks

dismiss

this

waived

portion

his
of

right

his

to

appeal.

appeal
See

his

sentence,

United

States

we
v.

Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010) (upholding validity
of appeal waiver if knowingly and voluntarily made).

2

Appeal: 14-4800

Doc: 51

Sparks

Filed: 11/23/2015

not

does

Pg: 3 of 4

the

challenge

validity

of

his

appeal

waiver, but contends that his challenge falls outside the scope
of the waiver.

He argues that the sentencing error was due to

ineffective assistance of counsel, which is an exception to his
waiver.

He

contends

that

his

attorney

provided

ineffective

assistance by allowing him to plead guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement
quantity

that
than

contained
was

a

stipulation

supported

by

the

of

a

evidence

greater
and

drug

thereby

subjecting Sparks to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears
on the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not
generally addressed on direct appeal.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Benton,

Instead, such claims 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
2010).
counsel

States

v.

Baptiste,

596

F.3d

214,

216

n.1

(4th

Cir.

Because the record does not conclusively establish that
provided

ineffective

assistance

to

Sparks,

his

ineffective assistance challenge may not be raised on direct
appeal, and does not therefore afford Sparks the opportunity to
appeal the sentencing determination.

See Benton, 523 F.3d at

435.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

Appeal: 14-4800

Doc: 51

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4