Filed: Sep. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GARNETT GILBERT SMITH, a/k/a Abdule Jones, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00479-WDQ-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GARNETT GILBERT SMITH, a/k/a Abdule Jones, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00479-WDQ-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GARNETT GILBERT SMITH, a/k/a Abdule Jones,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00479-WDQ-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara E, Kittay, BARBARA E. KITTAY, Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Garnett Gilbert Smith pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute cocaine. The judgment also contained
a provision for criminal forfeiture of narcotics proceeds. The
district court sentenced Smith to three hundred months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Smith’s counsel has submitted a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Smith received ineffective assistance of
counsel because both attorneys appointed to represent him failed
to secure a more favorable plea agreement that was offered by
the Government before a superseding indictment issued. Smith
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the same issue and the
Government declined to file a reply brief. We affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “are
generally not cognizable on direct appeal . . . unless it
conclusively appears from the record that defense counsel did
not provide effective representation.” United States v. Benton,
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Rather, a defendant must bring such claims in a
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), to allow adequate
development of the record. United States v. Baptiste,
596 F.3d
214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the record in its
2
entirety, we conclude that Smith’s claims of ineffective
assistance should not be addressed on direct appeal because
ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the
record.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smith 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 Smith. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3