Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04441/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tremayne K. Graham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREMAYNE K. GRAHAM, a/k/a Kiki,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:03-cr-01092-HMH-10)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: May 6, 2008

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Jessica Salvini, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Deborah Brereton

Barbier, Mark C. Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Columbia, South Carolina; Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 1 of 6
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tremayne K. Graham pled guilty pursuant to a written plea

agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

(2000); possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more

of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000);

conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1956(h), 1957 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); aiding and abetting the

maintenance of a stash house, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000),

21 U.S.C.A. § 856(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007); and failing to

appear before the court as required by the conditions of pretrial

release, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) (2000). The

district court sentenced Graham to life imprisonment, and Graham

timely appealed. 

The Government moved to dismiss the appeal prior to the

submission of briefs, contending the appeal was barred by the

appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. We deferred action

on the motion to dismiss and reinstated the briefing schedule.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for

appeal but suggesting the Government breached the plea agreement

and the district court erroneously found Graham breached the plea

agreement and imposed an improper sentence. Graham filed a pro se

supplemental brief raising similar issues as well as claiming

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 2 of 6
- 3 -

unfair treatment by the Government and ineffective assistance of

counsel. The Government declined to file a responding brief.

In the plea agreement, Graham waived the right to contest

either the conviction or the sentence on appeal or in any

post-conviction action, except for claims of prosecutorial

misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. Graham argues the

district court erroneously found Graham breached the plea agreement

and contends the Government was the breaching party. A party’s

waiver of the right to seek appellate review is not enforceable

when the opposing party breaches the plea agreement. United

States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2001).

When a party failed to raise in the district court the

issue of whether the plea agreement was breached, this Court

reviews the issue for plain error. United States v. McQueen, 108

F.3d 64, 65-66 & n.1 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Fant,

974 F.2d 559, 565 (4th Cir. 1992)). The parties agreed to certain

stipulations amounting to a total offense level of forty, but these

stipulations were binding on the Government only if Graham complied

with all terms of the plea agreement. As the Government amply

demonstrated at sentencing, Graham made false, incomplete, and

misleading statements to federal agents, thereby breaching the plea

agreement. Because of Graham’s violations, the Government was not

bound to its obligations under the plea agreement and could seek a

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 3 of 6
- 4 -

greater sentence without breaching the agreement. Graham therefore

fails to demonstrate plain error in the district court’s findings.

Graham also contends the district court erroneously

refused to credit him for acceptance of responsibility and failed

to require the Government to file a motion for downward departure.

As discussed above, Graham agreed to waive his right to challenge

his convictions and sentence on all claims except prosecutorial

misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. We will uphold

a waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and the issue

raised is within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick,

408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Having determined the

Government did not breach the plea agreement, we find Graham’s

valid appeal waiver forecloses his challenge to the sentence.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Graham first alleges

the Government treated him unfairly by calling a co-defendant to

testify at the sentencing hearing. We construe this allegation as

a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, which falls outside the scope

of the appeal waiver provision. The claim, though reviewable, is

meritless, as the conduct complained of did not infect the

proceedings with unfairness amounting to a denial of due process.

See United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Graham’s pro se supplemental brief also alleges

ineffective assistance of counsel, another claim outside the scope

of the waiver. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 4 of 6
- 5 -

generally cognizable on direct appeal unless ineffective assistance

conclusively appears on the record. See United States v. James,

337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003). Graham fails to make this

showing. Accordingly, we decline to consider this issue on direct

appeal. Should Graham wish to do so, he may pursue this claim in

an appropriate motion for post-conviction relief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s pending motion to dismiss

the appeal of the claims attacking Graham’s sentence, which are

barred by the valid and enforceable appeal waiver provision in the

plea agreement, and deny the motion as to the remaining claims. We

affirm Graham’s convictions and sentence to the extent Graham

raises claims outside the scope of the waiver provision. We

further deny Graham’s motion for appointment of new counsel and for

oral argument.

This court requires that counsel inform Graham, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If Graham requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

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

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Graham. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 5 of 6
- 6 -

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 07-4441 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/06/2008 Pg: 6 of 6