United States v. Edwards , 333 F. App'x 785 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:05-cr-00179-PJM-5)
Submitted: June 5, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary E. Proctor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Edwards appeals the district court’s criminal
judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Edwards challenges the
district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea and asserts that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in connection with his decision to enter a plea.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The record does not conclusively establish that
Edwards’ trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that but
for counsel’s deficient performance, Edwards would not have pled
guilty and would have proceeded to trial. Thus, Edwards’ claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in this
direct appeal. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th
Cir. 1997).
Review of the signed written plea agreement, the
transcript from the thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the
transcript from the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and
sentencing, and application of the criteria set forth in United
States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991), indicate
Edwards’ plea was knowing and voluntary, and thus is final and
binding. Consequently, we find that the district court did not
2
abuse its discretion by denying Edwards’ motion to withdraw his
guilty plea.
We accordingly affirm. 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
3