US v. Shawnetta Belton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00299-TLW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999745487]. [15-4310]

Appeal: 15-4310

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWNETTA BELTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cr-00299-TLW-1)

Submitted:

December 28, 2015

Decided:

February 1, 2016

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Winston David Holliday, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4310

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shawnetta Belton appeals her conviction and the sentence
imposed

by

the

district

court

after

she

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),
846 (2012).

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no
meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

but

raising

potential

issues

regarding the validity of Belton’s plea and the sufficiency of
the court’s explanation of her sentence.

Belton has filed a pro

se supplemental brief asserting several errors in her plea and
sentence and arguing that trial counsel was ineffective.

We

affirm.
Having reviewed the transcript of Belton’s plea colloquy,
we conclude that the district court substantially complied with
the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that any errors in
the colloquy did not affect her substantial rights.
States

v.

Massenburg,

564

F.3d

337,

343

(4th

See United
Cir.

2009)

(providing standard).
With respect to Belton’s sentence, we conclude that the
district court did not err in adopting the uncontested factual
allegations of the PSR.
388,

394

summarily

(4th
adopt

Cir.

See United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d

2011)

information

(holding
in
2

PSR

that

district

unless

court

defendant

may

makes

Appeal: 15-4310

Doc: 22

affirmative

Filed: 02/01/2016

showing

that

it

Pg: 3 of 4

is

inaccurate).

Any

error

in

calculating the Guidelines range was harmless because the court
expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence
even

if

its

calculations

were

erroneous,

and

the

120-month

sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.

United

States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.) (providing
harmless error standard), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014).
Finally, the court’s thorough explanation of its sentence was
adequate.

See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th

Cir. 2009).
To

the

extent

Belton

argues

that

trial

counsel

was

ineffective, we conclude that she has not made the requisite
showing

to

assert

an

ineffective

assistance

claim

on

direct

appeal and that this claim should be raised, if at all, in a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012).

United States v. Benton,

523

(“Ineffective

F.3d

424,

claims

are

unless

it

counsel

435

(4th

generally

not

conclusively

did

not

Cir.

2008)

cognizable

appears

provide

from

effective

assistance

on

direct

appeal

the

record

that

representation.”

. . .

defense

(internal

quotation marks omitted)).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Belton, in writing, of
3

Appeal: 15-4310

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Belton requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel

may

move

representation.
was

served

on

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
his

client.

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

4