Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4704 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTTIE ALLEN LOFTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00430-JAB-1) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4704 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTTIE ALLEN LOFTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00430-JAB-1) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTTIE ALLEN LOFTIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00430-JAB-1)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scottie Allen Loftis pled guilty, pursuant to a
binding plea agreement, to possession of stolen firearms, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012). See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Loftis to 120 months’
imprisonment — the sentence agreed to by the parties in the
binding plea agreement. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred by not sentencing Loftis
pursuant to the advisory Guidelines established in Loftis’
presentence report. Loftis has filed a pro se supplemental
brief, challenging his conviction and sentence and raising
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial
misconduct. We affirm Loftis’ conviction and dismiss the appeal
of his sentence.
Although Loftis argues that the district court erred
in accepting his guilty plea, our review of the plea hearing
reveals that the district court substantially complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea
colloquy and committed no error warranting correction on plain
error review. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532
(4th Cir. 2002). Importantly, we find that the court ensured
2
that Loftis understood the full import of his binding plea
agreement.
Next, we turn to Loftis’ appeal of his sentence.
Subject to narrow exceptions, a defendant who agrees to and
receives a particular sentence pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
agreement may not appeal that sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a), (c) (2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928,
932 (10th Cir. 2005). None of the exceptions to this rule
applies here. Loftis’ sentence was the applicable statutory
maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012), was not based on an
incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and was
precisely what he and the Government agreed was appropriate.
Accordingly, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to
review Loftis’ sentence.
Finally, we turn to Loftis’ claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Loftis
argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by forcing
him to plead guilty and by advising him to enter into the
binding plea agreement. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective
assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought
3
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit
sufficient development of the record. United States v.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the
record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that Loftis’ claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion. Furthermore, we conclude that the
current record does not support the claim that the prosecutor
conspired with counsel to force Loftis to plead guilty. See
United States v. Allen,
491 F.3d 178, 191 (4th Cir. 2007)
(stating elements of prosecutorial misconduct).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm Loftis’ conviction and dismiss the
appeal to the extent that he seeks review of his sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Loftis, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Loftis 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 Loftis. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
4
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
5
