US v. Robert Crenshaw

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00098-IMK-JSK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999823268].. [15-4542]

Appeal: 15-4542

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4542

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT CRENSHAW, a/k/a Pops,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00098-IMK-JSK-1)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4542

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Crenshaw

appeals

his

conviction

and

the

sentence

imposed after he pled guilty to distributing heroin within 1000
feet

of

a

protected

location,

in

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860 (2012).

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

Counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that

he

has

questioning

found

whether

no

meritorious

Crenshaw’s

grounds

plea

was

for

appeal

voluntary,

but

whether

Crenshaw’s sentence is reasonable, and whether Crenshaw’s first
attorney was effective.

Crenshaw was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Having reviewed the transcript of Crenshaw’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 his substantial rights.
States

v.

Massenburg,

(providing
Crenshaw

standard).
misapprehended

564

F.3d

337,

Although
the

343

counsel

terms

of

his

(4th

See United
Cir.

questions
plea

2009)
whether

agreement,

Crenshaw’s testimony at the plea hearing indicates that he fully
understood the extent of his bargain with the Government.

See

Walton v. Angelone, 321 F.3d 442, 462 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Absent
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is
bound

by

colloquy.”).

the

representations

he

made

during

the

plea

Moreover, Crenshaw has not shown that any such
2

Appeal: 15-4542

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

error would have affected his substantial rights, as there is no
indication that he would not have pled guilty absent the alleged
misunderstanding.
We

See Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343.

review

substantive
standard.

Crenshaw’s

reasonableness,
Gall

v.

United

sentence
applying
States,

for
an

552

procedural

and

abuse-of-discretion
U.S.

38,

51

(2007).

Having found no significant procedural error, we examine the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality of
the circumstances.
Guidelines

Id.

sentence

We presume on appeal that a within-

is

substantively

reasonable.

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

The defendant can rebut that presumption

only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

Id.

Having reviewed

the record, we conclude that Crenshaw has failed to rebut the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
Finally, to the extent counsel questions the effectiveness
of Crenshaw’s first attorney, we conclude that Crenshaw 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).
States

v.

Benton,

523

F.3d

424,

435

(4th

United

Cir.

2008)

(“Ineffective assistance claims are generally not cognizable on
direct

appeal

. . .

unless

it

conclusively
3

appears

from

the

Appeal: 15-4542

Doc: 30

record

that

Filed: 05/16/2016

defense

Pg: 4 of 4

counsel

did

not

provide

effective

representation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none.
sentence.
writing,

Accordingly,

we

affirm

Crenshaw’s

conviction

and

This court requires that counsel inform Crenshaw, in
of

his

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Crenshaw requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Crenshaw.

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