US v. Roderick Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00147-RJC-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999939741]. [16-4152]
Appeal: 16-4152
Doc: 29
Filed: 10/03/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4152
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODERICK LAUADES BROWN, a/k/a Nick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00147-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted:
September 29, 2016
Decided:
October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4152
Doc: 29
Filed: 10/03/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In February 2014, Roderick Lauades Brown received a 26month sentence based on his guilty plea conviction to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine based on conduct occurring in
2007.
he
In 2014, while Brown was serving his 26-month sentence,
entered
a
guilty
plea
to
two
counts
of
a
superseding
indictment: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine (Count 1); and
conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 2), for his conduct
in 2011 through 2012.
imprisonment.
Brown was sentenced to 120 months of
Thereafter
the
district
court
denied
Brown’s
motion to dismiss the indictment—Brown did not seek to withdraw
his guilty plea.
On appeal Brown’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that
there
whether
the
are
no
meritorious
district
court
issues
erred
by
for
appeal
denying
his
but
asking
motion
to
dismiss the indictment on the grounds of unjustifiable delay. *
We affirm.
*
In his Anders brief, counsel also notes that Brown waived
his right to appeal his conviction and sentence except for
circumstances not raised in this appeal. Because the Government
fails to seek dismissal of Brown’s appeal on this basis,
however, we are constrained to address the appeal on the merits.
See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005)
(noting this Court will enforce an appeal waiver where the
Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and the record
establishes the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his
(Continued)
2
Appeal: 16-4152
Doc: 29
We
Filed: 10/03/2016
review
due
process
Pg: 3 of 4
claims
de
novo,
United
States
v.
Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593, 595 (4th Cir. 2015), noting that Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause requires dismissal of an indictment
if it is shown that a pre-indictment delay caused substantial
prejudice to a defendant’s rights to a fair trial and that the
delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over
the accused.
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971).
We conduct a two-pronged inquiry to evaluate a defendant’s claim
that pre-indictment delay violated his right to due process:
first we examine whether the defendant has satisfied his burden
of
proving
actual
prejudice
and,
if
so,
we
consider
the
government’s reasons for the delay, balancing the prejudice to
the
defendant
with
the
Government’s
justification
for
delay.
United States v. Uribe-Rios, 558 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2009).
In evaluating the first prong, we are mindful that the defendant
bears
a
“heavy
burden”
because
he
must
demonstrate
“actual
prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice,” and must
“show
that
meaningfully
any
actual
impaired
prejudice
in
his
was
ability
substantial—that
to
defend
he
was
against
the
state’s charges to such an extent that the disposition of the
criminal
proceeding
was
likely
affected.”
United
States
v.
right to appeal under the totality of the circumstances, and the
issues raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver).
3
Appeal: 16-4152
Doc: 29
Shealey,
641
Filed: 10/03/2016
F.3d
627,
633-34
quotation marks omitted).
accordance
with
(4th
Cir.
2011)
(internal
We find this claim fails as Brown has
shown not actual prejudice.
In
Pg: 4 of 4
Id.
the
requirements
of
Anders,
we
have
examined the entire record and have found no meritorious issues,
noting that Brown pled guilty pursuant to plea hearing conducted
in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that his sentence
was
not
unreasonable
or
otherwise
erroneous. †
affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
therefore
This court requires that
counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Brown
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 representation.
Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Brown.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
†
Our Anders review includes the issues raised in Brown’s
pro se supplemental brief.
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?