Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Michael Johnson, 4th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Michael Johnson, 4th Cir. (2012)
No. 11-5103
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.
Malcolm J.
Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00047-H-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 3, 2012
PER CURIAM:
Michael
Ray
Johnson
appeals
his
convictions
for
counsel
filed
brief
pursuant
Anders
to
v.
issues
supplemental
brief,
for
appeal.
arguing
that
Johnson
his
filed
procedural
pro
due
se
process
rights were violated because the magistrate judge did not sua
sponte order an evaluation of his mental competency and that his
counsel
brief.
was
ineffective.
The
Government
declined
to
file
We affirm.
Because Johnson did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea,
error.
the
Rule
11
plea
colloquy
is
reviewed
for
plain
11
and
accepting
review
of
voluntary.
did
his
the
not
violate
plea.
record,
We
Johnsons
further
that
substantial
conclude,
Johnsons
plea
after
was
rights
a
in
thorough
knowing
and
judge.
his
lawyer
with
reasonable
degree
of
rational
must
establish
that
the
trial
court
[T]he
ignored
facts
to stand trial.
Cir.
2003).
We
conclude
that
the
magistrate
judge
did
not
that
Johnson
had
reasonable
degree
of
rational
the
552
sentence
is
reviewed
abuse-of-discretion
U.S.
consideration
38,
of
both
51
correctly
v.
review
and
United
requires
substantive
Gall
This
procedural
district
reasonableness,
standard.
(2007).
the
for
calculated
the
advisory
Guidelines
range, this court must decide whether the court considered the
18
U.S.C.
presented
3553(a)
by
the
(2006)
parties,
factors,
and
3
analyzed
sufficiently
the
arguments
explained
the
selected sentence.
If the sentence is
575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
We
conclude
mandatory
that
the
minimum
district
sentence
courts
was
imposition
both
of
the
procedurally
and
substantively reasonable.
Johnson
suggests
that
the
convictions
used
to
criminal
if
for
such
defendant
he
is
U.S.C. 924(e).
designation
is
properly
subject
to
an
under
18
U.S.C.
designated
enhanced
an
924(e)
armed
sentence
career
under
18
offense
manufacturing
18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1).
includes
or
possessing
state
law
with
offense
intent
to
involving
the
manufacture
or
was
at
least
ten
years.
18
U.S.C.
924(e)(2)(A)(ii).
convictions
as
qualify
serious
4
drug
offenses
under
924
because,
at
the
time
of
the
convictions,
each
offense
was
Johnsons
provided
ineffective
assistance.
United
States
v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) ([I]t is well
settled that a claim of ineffective assistance should be raised
in a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in the district court rather than
on
direct
ineffective
The
appeal,
unless
assistance.)
record
on
ineffectiveness.
appeal
the
record
(internal
does
not
conclusively
quotation
marks
conclusively
shows
omitted).
establish
We therefore affirm
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Counsels
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED