United States v. Partlow , 301 F. App'x 297 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL OHARRY PARTLOW, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cr-00705-HFF-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina; Reginald I.
Lloyd, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Partlow, Jr., pled guilty without a plea
agreement to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).
Partlow was sentenced to sixty months in prison, the statutory
minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Partlow now appeals.
His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Partlow has filed a pro
se brief raising additional issues. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 but concludes that it did. Our review of the transcript
of that proceeding discloses full compliance with the Rule.
Counsel also questions whether the sixty-month sentence was
reasonable but states that the district court committed no error
when it sentenced Partlow. Our review of the record discloses
no procedural or substantive error. In this regard, we note
that the court correctly calculated Partlow’s advisory
Guidelines range of 60-71 months and considered the factors set
forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) prior to imposing sentence.
Partlow’s within-Guidelines sentence may be presumed reasonable.
See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
Partlow has not rebutted this presumption. We conclude that his
2
sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007).
The claims raised in Partlow’s pro se brief lack
merit. First, his claim that counsel was ineffective is not
cognizable on direct appeal because ineffectiveness does not
conclusively appear on the face of the record. He should raise
this claim, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
Second, because Partlow’s valid guilty plea waives all prior
nonjurisdictional defects, see Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.
258, 267 (1973), he has waived any right to contest the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during
a traffic stop.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This
court requires counsel inform her client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of
the motion was served on the client. The motion to appoint
substitute counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument
3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4