Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207318/United-States-v-Rodney-Williamson-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:13:12+00:00

Document:
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Duncan joined.
COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
return of his indictment and that the admission of the surreptitious, post-indictment, pre-arrest recording violated that right.
vacated and remanded to this court for further consideration.
Amendment. The district court duly determined that Williamsons statements were voluntary and found no Fifth Amendment violations underlying the recorded conversation.
Williamson once again appealed the district courts decision.
to appoint him counsel to assist with his new-trial motion.
issues Williamson has raised along the way. We affirm.
agents succeeded in arresting him.
7, 2007; and Williamson timely appealed.
a defendants arrest and his arraignment." United States v.
United States v. DAnjou, 16 F.3d 604, 608 (4th Cir. 1994)).
brief." Williamson v. United States of America, 130 S. Ct.
absence of his counsel." 377 U.S. at 206.
Appellants statements and responses." Id. at 451.
Williamson appealed the district courts decision.
Williamsons appeals and now address their various issues.
justify reversal for plain error, we affirm on the issue.
entered its opinion on the Fifth Amendment issue, pursuant to our instructions.
or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v.
(2009) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.
"[A]n error is plain when the law at the time is settled."
United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 679 (4th Cir. 2001).
jury actually convicted [him] based upon the trial error." Id.
(citing United States v. Moore, 11 F.3d 475, 482 (4th Cir.
must also demonstrate the errors serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
the jury actually convicted [him] based upon the trial error."
Godwin, 272 F.3d at 680 (quoting Hastings, 134 F.3d at 240).
occasions. Michael Sealy testified that he accompanied Williamson to New York to pick up five kilograms of cocaine.
shown that its absence would alter the outcome of his trial.
could not also say that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
plain-error test is difficult, Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, and Williamson has not done so here.
we look to the "record in its entirety," and not to discrete portions of it.
conclusion today might be different." United States v. GonzalezRodriguez, 621 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2010).
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "[n]o person . . .
367 U.S. 568, 602 (1961); see also Braxton, 112 F.3d at 780.
end our analysis of the issue there.
at a restaurant in Greensboro on January 29, 2007.
also to discuss concerns about [co-conspirator] Mr.
nor did they direct him to ask questions at all.
received were to "put on a wire and have lunch." Mr.
leave the conversation with Mr. Alberty at any point.
was visible to Mr. Williamson. Instead, after Mr.
Williamson, 2011 WL 5836258, at *12 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Williamson or otherwise coerced him into answering questions.
decision. As such, we find no Fifth Amendment violation.
may take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.
appellate court remands the case.
within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty.
affirm the district courts decision.
appeal," Nelson v. Peyton, 415 F.2d 1154, 1157 (4th Cir.
corollary, a petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in order to mount a collateral challenge to his conviction.
the attendant Sixth Amendment right to counsel, McAfee v.
motions after the direct appeal is resolved.
days) after the district court enters the judgment of conviction.
the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2255."
States, 437 F.3d 1074, 1079 (11th Cir. 2006).
of the entry of the order disposing of that motion.
33 motion filed in accordance with subsection (A).
properly considered part of the direct appeal.
Appellate Procedure 4 are now fourteen-day periods.
that "the parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal." Fed. R. App.
may be consolidated for appeal.
(quoting Sprague v. Ticonic Natl Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 (1939)).
embraces." Id. at 66 (alterations in original) (quoting United States v.
motion remained truly collateral to the direct appeal.
appeal and find that they lack merit.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.