United States v. Gadsden

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Gadsden

90 F. App'x 42

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

Docket03-4554

StatusUnpublished

This text of 90 F. App'x 42 (United States v. Gadsden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Gadsden, 90 F. App'x 42 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Maurice Gadsden appeals his convictions and the 300-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). Gadsden’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gadsden has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Gadsden’s guilty plea. Because Gadsden did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). Our review of the record convinces us that there is no plain error.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Gadsden contends that counsel improperly advised him to plead guilty to the § 924(c) offenses. However, “[i]neffective assistance claims are not cognizable on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record.” United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1111, 157 L.Ed.2d 939 (2004). Because Gadsden has failed to meet this high standard, we decline to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Gadsden’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but coun *43 sel 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Steven Maurice Gadsden appeals his convictions and the 300-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). Gadsden’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gadsden has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Gadsden’s guilty plea. Because Gadsden did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). Our review of the record convinces us that there is no plain error.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Gadsden contends that counsel improperly advised him to plead guilty to the § 924(c) offenses. However, “[i]neffective assistance claims are not cognizable on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record.” United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1111, 157 L.Ed.2d 939 (2004). Because Gadsden has failed to meet this high standard, we decline to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Gadsden’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but coun *43 sel 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F. App'x 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gadsden-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack