UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTTIE ALLEN LOFTIS,

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. (1:13-cr-00430-JAB-1)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scottie Allen Loftis pled guilty, pursuant to a 

binding plea agreement, to possession of stolen firearms, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(c)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Loftis to 120 months’ 

imprisonment — the sentence agreed to by the parties in the 

binding plea agreement. On appeal, 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 questioning 

whether the district court erred by not sentencing Loftis 

pursuant to the advisory Guidelines established in Loftis’ 

presentence report. Loftis has filed a pro se supplemental 

brief, challenging his conviction and sentence and raising 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial 

misconduct. We affirm Loftis’ conviction and dismiss the appeal 

of his sentence.

Although Loftis argues that the district court erred 

in accepting his guilty plea, our review of the plea hearing 

reveals that the district court substantially complied with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea 

colloquy and committed no error warranting correction on plain 

error review. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532

(4th Cir. 2002). Importantly, we find that the court ensured 
3

that Loftis understood the full import of his binding plea 

agreement.

Next, we turn to Loftis’ appeal of his sentence. 

Subject to narrow exceptions, a defendant who agrees to and 

receives a particular sentence pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) 

agreement may not appeal that sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3742(a), (c) (2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 

932 (10th Cir. 2005). None of the exceptions to this rule 

applies here. Loftis’ sentence was the applicable statutory 

maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012), was not based on an 

incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and was 

precisely what he and the Government agreed was appropriate. 

Accordingly, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to 

review Loftis’ sentence.

Finally, we turn to Loftis’ claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Loftis 

argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by forcing 

him to plead guilty and by advising him to enter into the 

binding plea agreement. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective 

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. 

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought 
4

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit 

sufficient development of the record. United States v. 

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the 

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of 

counsel, we conclude that Loftis’ claims should be raised, if at 

all, in a § 2255 motion. Furthermore, we conclude that the 

current record does not support the claim that the prosecutor 

conspired with counsel to force Loftis to plead guilty. See

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 191 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(stating elements of prosecutorial misconduct).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Loftis’ conviction and dismiss the 

appeal to the extent that he seeks review of his sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Loftis, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Loftis 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 Loftis. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
5

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART