United States v. Barrentine , 423 F. App'x 292 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4847
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW EUGENE BARRENTINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00953-RBH-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 14, 2011
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann
Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Eugene Barrentine pleaded guilty, pursuant to
a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e)
(2006). The district court sentenced Barrentine as an armed
career criminal to the statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment of 180 months.
On appeal, Barrentine’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel does
call two issues to our attention: (1) whether the district
court fully complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
taking Barrentine’s guilty plea; and (2) whether Barrentine’s
sentence was unreasonable. Barrentine, through a letter, raises
the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government
chose not to file a response.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Barrentine has no valid claims to relief. Because Barrentine
did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea,
the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). “To
establish plain error, [Barrentine] must show that an error
occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected
his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d
2
247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Barrentine satisfies these
requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the
court’s] discretion, which [the court] should not exercise . . .
unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court failed to question Barrentine as to
whether he understood the warning that any false answers while
under oath may be used against him in a future prosecution for
perjury and failed to inform Barrentine of his right to
appointed counsel and to have counsel present at every stage of
the proceeding. These errors do not rise to the level of plain
error in this case because the record does not evidence a
reasonable probability that, but for the errors, Barrentine
would not have entered his plea of guilty. United States v.
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
We review a district court’s imposition of a sentence
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court
imposed a sentence at the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment
provided by statute. It had no discretion to sentence
Barrentine to a lesser term. United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Such a sentence is per se
3
reasonable and cannot be error. United States v. Farrior, 535
F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we decline to consider on direct appeal
Barrentine’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective
representation. To allow for adequate development of the
record, ineffective assistance of counsel claims must ordinarily
by pursued in appropriate post-conviction proceedings. See
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Because ineffective assistance of counsel is not conclusively
established by the present record, Barrentine must pursue this
claim on collateral attack.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Barrentine’s conviction and sentence. We
deny Barrentine’s motion to extend time to file a pro se
supplemental brief. This court requires that counsel inform
Barrentine, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Barrentine
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 Barrentine.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5