Court Opinion

ID: 9403955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:45.499402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.070432
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4609      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4609

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARQUIS LAMAR GAINES,

                             Defendant -Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00054-RJC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: August 30, 2022                                        Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jeffrey William Gillette, GILLETTE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Franklin, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4609      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Marquis Lamar Gaines seeks to appeal his sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment

        following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Gaines’ 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 contending that trial counsel pressured Gaines to accept an unfavorable plea agreement

        and rendered ineffective assistance. Gaines was notified of his right to file a pro se

        supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

               Because Gaines did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object to the plea

        hearing in the district court, we review his guilty plea for plain error. United States v.

        Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). “Under the plain error standard, we will correct

        an unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects

        substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

        reputation of judicial proceedings.”      United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491

        (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               When accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in

        which it informs the defendant of, and ensures that the defendant understands, the rights

        he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and

        the possible consequences of pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v.

        DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the plea is

        voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises extrinsic to the plea agreement

        and that a factual basis exists for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). “[A] properly

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4609      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        conducted Rule 11 plea colloquy raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and

        binding.” United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375, 377 n.1 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the magistrate judge

        substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11. We thus conclude Gaines’ guilty

        plea was voluntary and knowing, and is therefore valid.

               Unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel rendered ineffective

        assistance, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Faulls, 821

        F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the present record does not conclusively

        establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to address these claims

        on direct appeal. Thus, Gaines’ arguments are more appropriately raised, if at all, in a 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020),

        cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1051 (2021). We express no opinion as to the merits of Gaines’

        ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court

        requires that counsel inform Gaines, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court

        of the United States for further review. If Gaines 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 Gaines.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4609         Doc: 22    Filed: 06/20/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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

                                                  4