Filed: Sep. 17, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY HAYMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00180-F-1) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 17, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Michael McGuin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY HAYMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00180-F-1) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 17, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Michael McGuinn..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY HAYMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00180-F-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 17, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Hayman pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base “crack.” The
district court sentenced Hayman to 236 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but nominally raising thirteen
issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
For clarity’s sake, we have consolidated counsel’s
numerous issues into four categories. First, Hayman questions
whether there was any error regarding his plea. Because Hayman
did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea,
we review his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error and
find none. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Second, we find no abuse of discretion in Hayman’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)
(providing standard). The district court correctly calculated
Hayman’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as 210-262 months
and imposed a sentence in the middle of that range. The court
considered arguments from the parties, heard personally from
Hayman, and expressly stated that it had considered the factors
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) before
2
imposing the sentence. We presume on appeal that a sentence
imposed within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali,
528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Next, we find no ineffective assistance of counsel.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable
on direct appeal, unless the record conclusively establishes
ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson,
195 F.3d
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
Finally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Hayman’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Hayman, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hayman 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 Hayman.
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