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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4525 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4525 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TODD PHILLIP RADER, a/k/a Todd Phillip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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?