US v. Todd Rader

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 [1000042547].. [16-4525]

Appeal: 16-4525

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

February 28, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4525

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Todd Phillip Rader, pursuant to a written plea agreement,
pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to

distribute

at

least

500

grams

of

methamphetamine,

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2012).

in

The district

court sentenced Rader to 235 months of imprisonment and 5 years
of supervised release.
386

U.S.

738

(1967),

In accordance with Anders v. California,
appellate

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
raising

several

claims

of

ineffective

assistance

of

trial

counsel and questioning whether the sentencing court erred by
relying on a drug quantity supported only by a confession Rader
made

while

under

the

influence

of

drugs.

Rader

filed

a

supplemental pro se brief in which he also challenged the use of
his confession to establish drug quantities.

The government

elected not to file a response to the Anders brief.

We affirm

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.”
1071

(4th

Cir.

Voluntariness

is

1987)

United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067,
(internal

determined

by

quotation
examining

marks

omitted).

“whether

the

defendant’s will has been overborne or his capacity for self2

Appeal: 16-4525

Doc: 28

Filed: 03/15/2017

determination
quotation

critically

marks

Pg: 3 of 4

impaired.”

omitted).

“[T]he

Id.
mere

at

1071

fact

(internal

that

one

has

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).

Boggs v.

Rather, there must

be evidence that the individual was “so intoxicated that his
confession was not the product of his rational intellect and
free will.”

Id.

“An appellate court must make an independent

determination on the issue of voluntariness.”
at 1072.

“Although the review of this ultimate issue is to be

independent,

the

circumstances

district

surrounding

unless clearly erroneous.”
court

did

Pelton, 835 F.2d

not

err

in

court's
the

findings

confession

Id.

relying

of

are

to

fact
be

on

the

accepted

We conclude that the district
on

Rader’s

statement

to

law

enforcement officials detailing the quantity of drugs involved
in the instant offense.
Turning

to

the

allegations

of

ineffective

assistance

of

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).

United
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 States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1
3

Appeal: 16-4525

(4th

Doc: 28

Cir.

Filed: 03/15/2017

2010).

Because

Pg: 4 of 4

the

record

does

not

conclusively

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
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Rader

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 Rader.
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