United States v. Charles Barefoot, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00166-BO-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: July 7, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Eric David
Goulian, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to compel Barefoot’s former counsel to
mail him his case files so that Barefoot may pursue a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. We review the court’s denial of a motion
to compel for abuse of discretion. See Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d
505, 518 n.12 (4th Cir. 1999). Under N.C. Rules of Prof’l
Conduct R. 1.16(d), “[u]pon termination of representation, a
lawyer shall takes steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
protect a client’s interests, such as . . . surrendering papers
and property to which the client is entitled.” See also United
States v. Basham, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 3651574, at *27 (4th
Cir. 2015) (reviewing legal authority requiring counsel to
deliver client’s files upon termination of representation).
Thus, because Barefoot’s former counsel should return the case
files to Barefoot, we conclude the court misapprehended the
applicable legal principles and thus abused its discretion in
denying Barefoot’s motion to compel.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand with directions that Barefoot’s motion to compel be
granted and that the court direct Barefoot’s former counsel to
mail Barefoot the case files to which he is entitled. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3