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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Darryl Demetria Bostic pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He was sentenced to 235 months in prison, within the recommended guidelines range. 2) Bostic's attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioned if the sentence was reasonable and if the court provided sufficient reasoning. The appeals court found no errors. 3) Bostic also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appeals court found no evidence of ineffective assistance on the record. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views4 pages
    1) Darryl Demetria Bostic pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He was sentenced to 235 months in prison, within the recommended guidelines range. 2) Bostic's attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioned if the sentence was reasonable and if the court provided sufficient reasoning. The appeals court found no errors. 3) Bostic also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appeals court found no evidence of ineffective assistance on the record. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-09-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-5090

    Original Title

    United States v. Bostic, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Darryl Demetria Bostic pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He was sentenced to 235 months in prison, within the recommended guidelines range. 2) Bostic's attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioned if the sentence was reasonable and if the court provided sufficient reasoning. The appeals court found no errors. 3) Bostic also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appeals court found no evidence of ineffective assistance on the record. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Darryl Demetria Bostic pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. He was sentenced to 235 months in prison, within the recommended guidelines range. 2) Bostic's attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioned if the sentence was reasonable and if the court provided sufficient reasoning. The appeals court found no errors. 3) Bostic also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appeals court found no evidence of ineffective assistance on the record. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-5090

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARRYL DEMETRIA BOSTIC,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (4:08-cr-00373-RBH-3)

    Submitted:

    September 28, 2010

    Decided:

    September 30, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    C. Frederic Marcinak, III, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP,


    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher,
    Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl

    Demetria

    Bostic

    pled

    guilty

    pursuant

    to

    written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams


    or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine,
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006).
    imposed a 235-month sentence.

    The district court

    Counsel for Bostic filed a brief

    in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
    questioning whether the district court fashioned a reasonable
    sentence and whether it gave sufficient reasoning for its chosen
    sentence.

    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.


    A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.

    When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate


    the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in
    conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
    (2006).

    Gall

    v.

    United

    States,

    552

    U.S.

    38,

    49-50

    (2007).

    Appellate review of a district courts imposition of a sentence,


    whether

    inside,

    just

    outside,

    or

    significantly

    outside

    [g]uidelines range, is for abuse of discretion.

    the

    Id. at 41.

    Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed


    by

    the

    appellate

    court

    to

    be

    reasonable.

    Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

    United

    States

    v.

    The district court followed the necessary procedural


    steps

    in

    sentencing

    sentencing

    guidelines

    Bostic,
    as

    appropriately

    advisory,

    properly

    treating
    calculating

    the
    and

    considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the


    relevant 3553(a) factors.
    to 262 months.

    Bostics guidelines range was 210

    The parties agreed on a sentence of 235 months,

    which the court imposed.

    Bostics within-guidelines sentence

    may be presumed reasonable by this court.


    473.

    Pauley, 511 F.3d at

    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

    discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.


    Bostic filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that
    he received ineffective assistance in guilty plea proceedings,
    resulting in an invalid guilty plea, and received ineffective
    assistance of counsel in failing to object to the drug amount
    found for sentencing purposes.

    Bostics Fed R. Crim. P. 11

    hearing

    and

    was

    properly

    conducted

    he

    did

    not

    raise

    objections related to the voluntariness of his plea.

    any

    We may

    address on direct appeal a claim that counsel was ineffective


    only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively on the face of
    the record.

    United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th

    Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th
    Cir. 1991).

    On our review, no ineffective assistance appears

    conclusively on the record.

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record


    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court

    requires that counsel inform Bostic, in writing, of the right to


    petition

    the

    Supreme

    review.

    If

    Bostic

    Court

    of

    requests

    the
    that

    United
    a

    States

    petition

    for

    be

    further

    filed,

    but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Bostic.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like