Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    United States v. Ledarius Montgomery, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Ledarius Montgomery's supervised release and sentencing of 22 months imprisonment. Montgomery's counsel argued the sentence was unreasonable, Montgomery lacked opportunity to be heard, received ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct occurred. However, the Court found the sentence was within statutory limits and not plainly unreasonable. It also found no evidence to support the other claims of error. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Ledarius Montgomery, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    79 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Ledarius Montgomery's supervised release and sentencing of 22 months imprisonment. Montgomery's counsel argued the sentence was unreasonable, Montgomery lacked opportunity to be heard, received ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct occurred. However, the Court found the sentence was within statutory limits and not plainly unreasonable. It also found no evidence to support the other claims of error. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4685

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Ledarius Montgomery's supervised release and sentencing of 22 months imprisonment. Montgomery's counsel argued the sentence was unreasonable, Montgomery lacked opportunity to be heard, received ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct occurred. However, the Court found the sentence was within statutory limits and not plainly unreasonable. It also found no evidence to support the other claims of error. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    79 views3 pages

    United States v. Ledarius Montgomery, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Ledarius Montgomery's supervised release and sentencing of 22 months imprisonment. Montgomery's counsel argued the sentence was unreasonable, Montgomery lacked opportunity to be heard, received ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct occurred. However, the Court found the sentence was within statutory limits and not plainly unreasonable. It also found no evidence to support the other claims of error. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4685

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    LEDARIUS DANTE MONTGOMERY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00086-JAB-1)

    Submitted:

    March 18, 2015

    Decided:

    March 23, 2015

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS


    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Assistant United States Attorney,
    for Appellee.

    &

    STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,


    Terry Michael Meinecke,
    Greensboro, North Carolina,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ledarius

    Dante

    Montgomery

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 22


    months imprisonment.

    Montgomerys counsel has filed a brief

    pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating


    that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but briefly
    raising

    whether

    (1) Montgomerys

    sentence

    was

    unreasonable,

    (2) the court denied Montgomery an opportunity to be heard at


    sentencing,

    (3) Montgomery

    had

    ineffective

    assistance

    counsel, and (4) prosecutorial misconduct occurred.

    of

    Montgomery

    was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,


    but he has not filed one.
    A

    district

    sentence

    upon

    court

    We affirm.
    has

    revocation

    broad
    of

    discretion

    supervised

    when

    release.

    States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).


    affirm
    maximum

    revocation
    and

    is

    not

    sentence
    plainly

    quotation marks omitted).

    if

    it

    is

    imposing

    within

    unreasonable.

    United
    We will

    the

    statutory

    Id.

    (internal

    Because Montgomery did not challenge

    his sentences procedural or substantive reasonableness before


    the district court, we review his sentence only for plain error.
    Webb, 738 F.3d at 640-41.
    Applying these standards, we note that counsel pointed to
    no specific error in the sentence and conclude that Montgomerys
    sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so.
    2

    Next, the

    record
    address

    demonstrates
    the

    that

    district

    prosecutorial

    Montgomery

    court

    misconduct.

    and

    had

    an

    contains

    Finally,

    we

    opportunity
    no

    decline

    evidence
    to

    to
    of

    address

    Montgomerys ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.

    See

    United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010)
    (providing standard).
    In

    accordance

    with

    Anders,

    we

    have

    reviewed

    the

    entire

    record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for


    appeal.

    We

    therefore

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment.

    This court requires that counsel inform Montgomery, in writing,


    of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
    for further review.
    filed,

    but

    counsel

    If Montgomery requests that a petition be


    believes

    that

    such

    petition

    would

    be

    frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to


    withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion must state that

    a copy thereof was served on Montgomery.


    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

    You might also like