United States v. Bivings , 173 F. App'x 293 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4856
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JERMAINE BIVINGS, a/k/a Bivo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-04-840)
    Submitted:   March 8, 2006                 Decided:   April 3, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellant.       Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Jermaine Bivings appeals his convictions and 216-month
    sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
    intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more
    than fifty grams of crack (Count 1), in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000); possession with intent to distribute a quantity of
    cocaine and more than fifty grams of crack (Count 2), in violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2000); use of a telephone to facilitate
    the drug offense charged in Count 2 (Count 4), in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 843
    (b) (2000); and possession with intent to distribute
    more       than    fifty   grams   of   crack    (Count     8),   in   violation     of
    § 841(a)(1).         Bivings’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), challenging the adequacy of the
    plea       colloquy    but   stating    that,    in   his   view,      there   are   no
    meritorious         issues   for   appeal.       Bivings    has   filed    a   pro   se
    supplemental brief.          We affirm.
    Counsel questions whether the district court complied
    with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Bivings’ guilty plea.
    Because Bivings did not move to withdraw his guilty plea,* we
    review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for
    plain error.          United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th
    Cir. 2002).         We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule
    *
    Bivings filed two motions to withdraw his guilty plea in the
    district court but withdrew them at the sentencing hearing.
    - 2 -
    11   hearing     and    find    no   plain    error    in    the   district    court’s
    acceptance of Bivings’ guilty plea.                 See United States v. DeFusco,
    
    949 F.2d 114
    , 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
    In his pro se supplemental brief, Bivings contends that
    the district court erred by denying his motion for the appointment
    of new counsel.         Our review of the record convinces us that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
    See United States v. Reevey, 
    364 F.3d 151
    , 156 (4th Cir. 2004)
    (stating standard of review and discussing factors courts consider
    in ruling on motion).           Finally, with regard to Bivings’ claim that
    counsel provided ineffective assistance due to a conflict of
    interest, we “may address [such claims] on direct appeal only if
    the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.”
    United States v. Baldovinos, 
    434 F.3d 233
    , 239 (4th Cir. 2006),
    cert. denied,            U.S.        , 
    2006 WL 386973
     (U.S. Feb. 21, 2006)
    (No.     05-8667).        Because     we     find    no     evidence   of   counsel’s
    ineffectiveness on the record presented, we decline to review this
    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 Bivings’ 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,
    - 3 -
    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 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
    - 4 -