Unpublished
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnpublished
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DUPRE DISHAWN JENKINS, a/k/a Dupree Dishawn Jenkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00145-WO-1)
Submitted:
September 9, 2015
Decided:
September 11, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dupre Dishawn Jenkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to two counts of interference with commerce by
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), 2 (2012).
The
district court sentenced Jenkins to concurrent 108-month terms
of
imprisonment,
within
the
Sentencing Guidelines range.
100-
to
125-month
advisory
On appeal, counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Jenkins was denied effective assistance of
counsel.
Jenkins was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental
brief,
but
has
not
filed
one.
The
Government
declined to file a brief.
Because
Jenkins
did
not
move
in
the
district
court
to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for
plain error.
Cir. 2002).
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
To establish plain error, [Jenkins] must show that
an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error
affected his substantial rights.
478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Muhammad,
Even if Jenkins satisfies
these requirements, correction of the error remains within our
discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error
seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.
Id. (internal quotation marks and
2
citation
omitted).
Our
review
of
the
record
leads
us
to
conclude that the district court complied with Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Jenkins guilty
plea, which Jenkins entered knowingly and voluntarily.
Next,
we
substantive
review
reasonableness
discretion standard.
(2007).
Jenkins
sentence
under
for
procedural
deferential
and
abuse
of
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
We must first ensure that the district court did not
commit any significant procedural error, such as failing to
properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence.
sentence
procedurally
reasonable,
substantive reasonableness.
we
Id. at 328.
Id.
then
If we find the
consider
its
We presume on appeal
that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable.
162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d
Such a presumption is rebutted only
when the defendant shows that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured
against
the
3553(a)
factors.
United
States
v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
Upon
sentencing
review,
error
we
by
discern
the
no
district
procedural
court.
The
or
substantive
district
court
correctly calculated Jenkins advisory Guidelines range, heard
argument
from
counsel,
provided
3
Jenkins
an
opportunity
to
allocute, and considered the 3553(a) sentencing factors.
have
reviewed
Guidelines
the
sentence
record
is
and
both
conclude
that
procedurally
Jenkins
and
We
within-
substantively
reasonable.
Turning
claims,
to
unless
Jenkins
an
ineffective
attorneys
assistance
ineffectiveness
of
counsel
conclusively
appears on the face of the record, such claims are not generally
addressed on direct appeal, United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008), but rather 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 (4th Cir. 2010).
Because 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.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
This
court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Jenkins 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.
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jenkins.
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
