United States v. Kratsas , 9 F. App'x 107 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
              No. 00-6982
    PAUL GEORGE KRATSAS, a/k/a P. J.
    Kratsas,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-92-208-H, CA-95-2007-H)
    Submitted: April 20, 2001
    Decided: May 4, 2001
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Beth M. Farber, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Mary-
    land, for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States Attorney,
    Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Mary-
    land, for Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. KRATSAS
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Paul George Kratsas seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-
    ing his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000).
    The district court granted a certificate of appealability. We have
    reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no revers-
    ible error.
    Kratsas was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to
    distribute cocaine. Kratsas’ first attorney negotiated a plea agreement
    with the Government that would have exposed Kratsas to a maximum
    penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment. Kratsas fired his attorney at
    the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, retained a new attorney, proceeded
    to trial, and was convicted. Due to his two previous drug related fel-
    ony convictions and the quantity of cocaine charged, more than five
    kilograms, Kratsas received the mandatory sentence of life imprison-
    ment.
    We affirmed Kratsas’ conviction and sentence on direct appeal in
    a published opinion. See United States v. Kratsas, 
    45 F.3d 63
     (4th Cir.
    1995). Kratsas filed a petition pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
    , which
    was denied by the district court in a published opinion. See Kratsas
    v. United States, 
    102 F. Supp.2d 320
     (D. Md. 2000). The district court
    granted a certificate of appealability. Kratsas noted a timely appeal,
    raising two issues: (1) the impact of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), on his trial, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
    Under United States v. Sanders, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2001 WL 369719
    (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), Kratsas’ Apprendi claim is
    procedurally barred because it was raised in the first instance on
    appeal of the denial of collateral relief. In Sanders, this Court con-
    cluded that Apprendi did not announce a new rule of constitutional
    law that fell under any exception of Teague v. Lane, 
    489 U.S. 288
    UNITED STATES v. KRATSAS                        3
    (1989), to permit retroactive application on collateral review. Sand-
    ers, 
    2001 WL 369719
    , at *6.
    We review Kratsas’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim de
    novo. Becton v. Barnett, 
    920 F.2d 1190
    , 1192 (4th Cir. 1990). We
    find the district court correctly concluded: (1) Kratsas was informed
    by his attorney that he faced a mandatory life sentence if he pro-
    ceeded to trial and lost; and (2) his attorney’s conduct did not fall
    below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687-88 (1984); see also Jones v. Murray,
    
    947 F.2d 1106
     (4th Cir. 1991) (holding attorney need not insure client
    understands all of what he is told). Accordingly, we affirm the district
    court’s order substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See
    United States v. Kratsas, Nos. CR-92-208-H; CA-95-2007-H (D. Md.
    June 29, 2000). 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