UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARION SHAWN ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00231-LMB-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Craig Hughes, LAW OFFICES OF D. CRAIG HUGHES, Houston, Texas, 

for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Shawn Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute five 

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

§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). Anderson was sentenced to twenty 

years’ imprisonment, the statutory minimum sentence based on a 

prior felony drug conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.1

Anderson contends counsel was ineffective for 

providing false assurances and misleading advice and that his 

effectiveness was stunted because he was suffering from nonHodgkin’s lymphoma causing him to take numerous medications. He 

further contends that he proclaimed his innocence to counsel 

asserting that he was never part of the charged conspiracy but

that counsel never investigated his version of events. Anderson 

also contends that his guilty plea was the result of coercion 

from counsel and the Government that rose after the motion to 

suppress was filed. He was told that if he followed through 

with the suppression motion, the proposed plea agreement would 

be withdrawn. He claims he was also told that the Government 

would not seek the increased statutory sentence. Anderson also 

claims counsel told him his Guidelines sentence would be 97 to 

 1 Because this is an appeal from the a final judgment of 

conviction, the Government’s claim that the appeal cannot 

proceed without a certificate of appealability is without merit. 
3

121 months and that the Government would move to reduce his 

sentence by as much as 65%. Anderson asserts that it was not 

until the Rule 11 hearing that he learned of the Government’s 

notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) and the twenty year

mandatory minimum sentence. 

Anderson further claims that the Government breached 

the plea agreement because it (1) filed the § 851 notice and 

supported the aggravating enhancements to his offense level; 

(2) did not support a total offense level of twenty-nine; and 

(3) failed to move for a downward departure under U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1. 

It is well established that claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel will not be reviewed on direct appeal 

unless the appellate record conclusively demonstrates 

ineffective assistance. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 

435 (4th Cir. 2008). The record in this instance falls far 

short of supporting Anderson’s ineffective assistance of claims. 

Accordingly, we will not review the claims. 

Anderson did not claim in the district court at 

sentencing that the Government breached the plea agreement, so 

we review for plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 133-34 (2009). To succeed on this claim, Anderson must 

establish “(1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the 

defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects 
4

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640, 645 (4th 

Cir. 2009). We conclude that the record fails to show that 

there was a breach of any kind by the Government. Accordingly, 

there was no error, much less plain error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.2 

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

 2 Anderson also contends that the appeal waiver that was in 

the plea agreement should not be enforced. Because the 

Government is not seeking to enforce the appeal waiver, this 

claim is moot.