US v. Todd Rader
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999966491-2] Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Todd Phillip Rader; 30379-058 F.C.I. McKean P.O. BOX 8000 BRADFORD, PA 16701 .. [16-4525]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TODD PHILLIP RADER, a/k/a Todd Phillip Radar,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1)
February 28, 2017
March 15, 2017
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. Kilbourne, Jr., DUNGAN, KILBOURNE & STAHL, PA,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Todd Phillip Rader, pursuant to a written plea agreement,
pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2012).
court sentenced Rader to 235 months of imprisonment and 5 years
of supervised release.
In accordance with Anders v. California,
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
counsel and questioning whether the sentencing court erred by
relying on a drug quantity supported only by a confession Rader
supplemental pro se brief in which he also challenged the use of
his confession to establish drug quantities.
elected not to file a response to the Anders brief.
the district court’s judgment.
“The voluntariness of a statement is to be determined from
the totality of the circumstances, including the characteristics
of the defendant, the setting of the interview, and the details
of the interrogation.”
United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067,
defendant’s will has been overborne or his capacity for self2
Pg: 3 of 4
consumed [intoxicating substances] does not mean that he is so
intoxicated as to make his confession involuntary.”
Bair, 892 F.2d 1193, 1198 (4th Cir. 1989).
Rather, there must
be evidence that the individual was “so intoxicated that his
confession was not the product of his rational intellect and
“An appellate court must make an independent
determination on the issue of voluntariness.”
“Although the review of this ultimate issue is to be
unless clearly erroneous.”
Pelton, 835 F.2d
We conclude that the district
enforcement officials detailing the quantity of drugs involved
in the instant offense.
trial counsel, unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears on the face of the record, “[i]neffective assistance
claims are generally not cognizable on direct appeal.”
States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
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 States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1
Pg: 4 of 4
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 record in
this case, as well as Rader’s pro se supplemental brief, and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation and affirm the
district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel
inform Rader, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
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.
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Rader.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?