United States v. Pope , 404 F. App'x 781 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL GLENN POPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00046-MR-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Glenn Pope appeals from his conviction and
sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
intentionally traffic and attempt to traffic in goods while
knowingly using, on and in connection with such goods,
counterfeit marks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (2006).
Pope was sentenced to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment and
ordered to pay $148,645.79 in restitution, for which he was
jointly and severally liable with his coconspirators. On
appeal, Pope’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues on appeal but asking the court to review:
(1) whether Pope knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to
appeal; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Pope’s
motion to dismiss for prosecutorial delay; (3) whether the
record supports a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;
(4) whether the record supports a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct; and (5) whether the sentence imposed was
procedurally and substantively valid. Pope filed a pro se
supplemental brief asserting that: (1) his restitution was
incorrectly calculated; (2) the Government engaged in
misconduct; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
issues raised do not entitle Pope to relief. The district court
2
fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Pope’s
guilty plea, which was knowing and voluntary, and which Pope did
not move to withdraw. Pope’s plea waived his claim of
pre-indictment delay because he did not enter a conditional plea
reserving this issue. United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489,
490 (4th Cir. 1983). We also conclude that Pope’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Finally, because the
record does not support Pope’s claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, we decline to consider
these claims on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Pope’s conviction and sentence. We deny
Pope’s motion for bail. This court requires that counsel inform
Pope, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Pope 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 Pope.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4