United States v. Octavious Artis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 22-4374
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4374 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OCTAVIOUS ARTIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00302-D-1)

Submitted: April 22, 2024 Decided: June 6, 2024

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4374 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Octavious Artis pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, marijuana, and cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (Count 1), and possession with intent to distribute

heroin and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (Count 2). The

district court sentenced him to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment, to be followed

by three years of supervised release.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and a supplemental brief, * stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

but questioning whether the district court erroneously sentenced Artis as a career offender

and whether the court erred by imposing a warrantless search condition on Artis’ term of

supervised release. Artis has filed several pro se supplemental briefs in which he

challenges the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his plea on Count 1; contends that

defense counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance during the plea

proceedings and at sentencing; and raises various challenges to his career offender

designation.

The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Artis’ waiver of the

right to appeal included in the plea agreement. Where, as here, the Government seeks to

* In his supplemental pro se brief, Artis complained of a conflict of interest. This court granted Artis’ first attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel and appointed new counsel, who adopted the Anders brief and filed a supplemental brief. Because the Government filed a renewed motion to dismiss following this additional brief, we deny as moot the Government’s earlier-filed motion.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4374 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

enforce an appeal waiver and the defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement,

“we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue[s] being appealed fall[] within the

scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Artis

knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the waiver is valid and

enforceable.

Artis’ pro se briefs raise several claims that fall outside the appeal waiver’s scope,

including his challenge to the factual basis for his plea and his ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). However,

we conclude that Artis’ guilty plea was supported by an adequate factual basis. As to Artis’

ineffective assistance claims, we will reverse on this ground “only if it conclusively appears

in the trial record itself that the defendant was not provided effective representation.”

United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up).

Because the present record does not conclusively show that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance, Artis’ claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Faulls,

821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

As the Government correctly argues, Artis’ remaining challenges to his sentence—

including his arguments related to his career offender designation and the conditions

governing his supervised release term—fall squarely within the scope of his appeal waiver.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found

no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Artis’ valid appeal waiver. We

therefore deny as moot the Government’s first motion to dismiss, grant the Government’s

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4374 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/06/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

renewed motion to dismiss in part, and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the

waiver. We otherwise affirm.

This court requires that counsel inform Artis, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Artis 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 Artis. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART