United States v. Patrick Chambers , 632 F. App'x 162 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4462
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK GERARD CHAMBERS, a/k/a P-Chains,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00263-RJC-2)
Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Gerard Chambers appeals his conviction and sentence
imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine
(Count 1) and crack cocaine (Count 2), possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of cocaine (Count 28), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime (Count 40). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising potential issues
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the Government’s
authority to file a downward-departure motion. Although advised
of his right to do so, Chambers has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
Chambers first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
for the § 924(c) charge. A knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
guilty plea “conclusively establishes the elements of the
offense and the material facts necessary to support the
conviction.” United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th
Cir. 1993). However, “it is well settled that a defendant may
raise on direct appeal the failure of a district court to
develop on the record a factual basis for a plea [in accordance
with Rule 11(b)(3)].” United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363,
366 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Here, the relevant conduct in the presentence report, to
which Chambers stipulated, is sufficient to establish that he
possessed firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes.
See id. at 367 (“A stipulated recitation of facts alone is
sufficient to support a plea . . . .” (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Jeffers,
570 F.3d 557, 565 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating elements of §
924(c)(1)(A) offense). Moreover, having reviewed the transcript
of Chambers’ plea colloquy, we conclude that the district court
substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11, and that any errors in the colloquy did not affect his
substantial rights. See United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct.
2139, 2147 (2013) (stating that, to demonstrate effect on
substantial rights in Rule 11 context, defendant “must show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not
have entered the plea” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Counsel next questions the Government’s failure to file a
motion for downward departure on Count 40 when it filed a motion
on Counts 1, 2, and 28. The decision whether to file a motion
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2014),
and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2012), lies solely within the
Government’s discretion. United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683,
686 (4th Cir. 2001). Thus, unless the Government obligated
itself in the plea agreement to make such a motion, its refusal
3
to do so is not reviewable absent evidence of an
unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181,
185-87 (1992); Butler, 272 F.3d at 686. Because nothing in the
plea agreement obligated the Government to make a § 5K1.1 motion
and the record reveals no basis for concluding that the
Government’s decision was based on an unconstitutional motive,
we find no error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Chambers, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Chambers requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on his client. 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
4