Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stewart L. CLOER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4490.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2001.
    Decided July 10, 2001.
    
      Stewart L. Cloer, pro se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stewart L. Cloer appeals from his guilty plea conviction to three counts of falsely making and subscribing a tax return under penalty of perjury. We deny Cloer’s claims on appeal for the reasons that follow.

First, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000). Second, we do not address Cloer’s claims that the district court committed sentencing errors as he waived his right to appeal these issues in a valid plea agreement, which was reviewed by the district court in a proper Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir.1991). Next, we do not find that the district court committed clear error by denying his numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir.1997). Finally, we decline to review Cloer’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because the record does not “conclusively” demonstrate that he received such defective counsel. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 704 (2000).

We deny Cloer’s pending motions for release (bail) and to “Vacate Order of the Clerk and for Immediate Release.” We also deny his motion for oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.