US v. John Patterson, No. 08-4170 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN EDWARD PATTERSON, a/k/a Pat Patterson, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00251-LHT-5) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas A. Will, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS A. WILL, JR., Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Edward Patterson, a/k/a Pat Patterson, appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Patterson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that stipulated, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), that the Career Offender provision set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 4B1.1 may be used in determining his sentence if it was determined to be applicable. Patterson s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967). Although concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, counsel questions whether Patterson s guilty plea was valid and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Patterson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief and the Government declined to file a brief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm. I. Under Rule 11(b)(1), the district court must address the defendant in open court and inform him of the following: the nature of the charge; any mandatory minimum sentence and the maximum possible sentence; the applicability of the Sentencing Guidelines; the court s obligation 2 to impose a special assessment; the defendant s right to an attorney; his right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury with the assistance of counsel; his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; his right against self-incrimination; and his right to testify, present evidence, and compel the attendance of witnesses. The defendant any also must be told that a guilty plea waives further trial and that his answers at the proceeding may be used against him in a prosecution for perjury. Under Rule 11(b)(2), the court must address the defendant to determine that the plea is voluntary. The court must require disclosure of any plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(2) and determine a factual basis for the plea under Rule 11(b)(3). At the Rule 11 hearing, the district court informed Patterson of the nature of the charges against him, the possible application of the guidelines to his sentence, and the fact that he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if he received a higher sentence than he expected. When Patterson questioned the the guidelines range determined at sentencing hearing, and the court questioned whether he understood that he could have chosen to go to trial, Patterson indicated that he would not have wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. go to trial, and did not seek to The record reflects that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. 3 II. We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively on the face of the record. F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 2006). In this case, there is no conclusive indication from the record that Patterson s counsel did not properly advise him regarding his plea agreement, despite Patterson s contention that his counsel estimated his guidelines range would be lower than it was determined to be, perhaps based upon a mistaken prediction that Patterson would not be sentenced as a career offender. The plea agreement specifically noted that Patterson might be sentenced as a career offender, and the record does not conclusively indicate that Patterson s counsel failed to effectively advise him regarding that provision. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Patterson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Patterson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court 4 for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Patterson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.