United States v. Henderson

161 F. App'x 310
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 11, 2006
Docket04-4057
StatusUnpublished

This text of 161 F. App'x 310 (United States v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 161 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Henderson was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). He was sentenced to 118 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he maintains that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. * We affirm.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees not only the right to be represented by counsel but the right to self-representation. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The decision to represent oneself must be knowing and intelligent. Id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. Courts must entertain every reasonable presumption against waiver of counsel. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). The record must show that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 110 (4th Cir.1988). Determination of a waiver of the right to counsel is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1097 n. 3 (4th Cir.1997). We have reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and conclude that the district court adequately informed Henderson of the dangers of self-representation and sufficiently ensured that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.

Accordingly, we affirm Henderson’s conviction and sentence. 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

*

Although in his opening brief Henderson argued that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), he now concedes in a supplemental brief that his sentence does not violate his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

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

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Brewer v. Williams
430 U.S. 387 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Ishmael Gallop
838 F.2d 105 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Frederick Keith Singleton
107 F.3d 1091 (Fourth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. App'x 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-henderson-ca4-2006.