United States v. Hodges ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 00-4127
    ERNEST J. HODGES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-99-58)
    Submitted: November 30, 2000
    Decided: December 22, 2000
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Eliza-
    bethtown, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth F. Whitted,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. HODGES
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Ernest Hodges appeals his criminal conviction and 292-month sen-
    tence imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to possess
    with intent to distribute cocaine and at least fifty grams of cocaine
    base. Hodges’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), concluding that there are no merito-
    rious issues for appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel addressed
    the possibility that the evidence of conspiracy was insufficient; that
    the district court erred in allowing testimony from cooperating wit-
    nesses; that the district court erred in declining to depart downward
    at sentencing; that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; that
    the jury issued a general verdict failing to specify the object of the
    conspiracy; that Hodges was not personally served with a copy of the
    superseding indictment; and that the district court erred in determin-
    ing drug quantities at sentencing.
    Hodges has filed a pro se brief to supplement his counsel’s Anders
    brief. In his brief, Hodges raises two arguments similar to those raised
    by counsel in that he contends the district court erred in determining
    the quantity of drugs attributable to him and that the jury’s general
    verdict was inadequate to establish the object of the conspiracy.
    Hodges also argues that his sentence violates the Supreme Court’s
    holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
     (2000), because
    the quantity of drugs should have been submitted to the jury. Because
    we find all the assignments of error to be without merit and can dis-
    cern no other reversible error in the record on appeal, we affirm
    Hodges’ conviction and sentence.
    When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence of a criminal con-
    viction on direct review, "[t]he verdict of [the] jury must be sustained
    if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the
    Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80
    (1942). We find substantial evidence in the record from which a rea-
    sonable jury could have determined that a drug conspiracy existed of
    which Hodges was a participant. See United States v. Collazo, 
    732 F.2d 1200
    , 1205 (4th Cir. 1984).
    UNITED STATES v. HODGES                         3
    Counsel’s argument that the Government violated 
    18 U.S.C. § 201
    (c)(2) (1994) because several of the Government’s witnesses
    were given leniency has been rejected by this Court. See United States
    v. Richardson, 
    195 F.3d 192
    , 196-97 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 
    120 S. Ct. 837
     (2000).
    This Court does not review a district court’s refusal to depart
    unless the decision is based on a mistaken perception of lack of
    authority. United States v. Bayerle, 
    898 F.2d 28
    , 30-31 (4th Cir.
    1990). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the district court
    believed it lacked the authority to depart, and therefore we will not
    review this claim.
    A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in a
    motion filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000),
    rather than on direct appeal, unless the record conclusively demon-
    strates ineffectiveness. See United States v. Williams, 
    977 F.2d 866
    ,
    871 (4th Cir. 1992). None of Hodges’ assertions of error are conclu-
    sively established on the face of the record, and therefore, they should
    be pursued in a § 2255 motion.
    Counsel’s claim that Hodges was not served with the superseding
    indictment lacks a factual basis in the record. Moreover, Hodges’
    failed to raise an objection in the district court, and has alleged no
    prejudice.
    Hodges and his counsel contest the jury’s general verdict on the
    grounds that it did not specify whether the jury found Hodges guilty
    of a drug offense involving cocaine, cocaine base, or both. Because
    Hodges failed to object at trial, this claim is reviewed for plain error.
    See United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32 (1993). The indict-
    ment did not name the drugs in the alternative, and the district court
    did not instruct the jury to find Hodges guilty if they found a conspir-
    acy involving either cocaine or cocaine base. Because the jury did not
    have the option of finding Hodges guilty of one drug, but not the
    other, the district court did not plainly err. Cf. United States v.
    Rhynes, 
    196 F.3d 207
     (4th Cir. 1999) (special verdict required when
    drugs were charged in the alternative).
    Hodges and counsel claim the district court erred in its determina-
    tion of the quantity of drugs attributable to Hodges. Because counsel
    4                      UNITED STATES v. HODGES
    withdrew the objection to drug quantity at sentencing, Hodges waived
    this claim unless there is plain error. See Olano, 
    507 U.S. at 732
    ;
    United States v. Grubb, 
    11 F.3d 426
    , 440-41 (4th Cir. 1993). We find
    no error which seriously affects the fairness or integrity of Hodges’
    sentence.
    Finally, the Supreme Court, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
     (2000), held as a principle of constitutional law that, except for
    "the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for
    a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted
    to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 
    Id. at 2362-63
    . In
    this case, the indictment alleged "cocaine and at least fifty grams of
    cocaine base," and the district court instructed the jury that the charge
    alleged cocaine and at least fifty grams of cocaine base. Because the
    drug quantity was alleged in the indictment and submitted to the jury,
    there is no violation of Apprendi.
    As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire
    record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible
    issues presented by this record and concluded that there are no non-
    frivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the
    Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal
    Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), this court requires
    that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
    Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,
    counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless
    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,
    counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from represen-
    tation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
    the client.
    Hodges’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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