US v. Joseph Young, III, No. 09-4133 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH LOUIS YOUNG, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:07-cr-00113-GRA-1) Submitted: November 12, 2009 Decided: January 14, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel K. Dorsey, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This case is before us after resentencing on remand. We earlier affirmed Joseph Louis Young, III s conviction pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), one marijuana count and of possession crack cocaine, in with intent violation to of distribute 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). crime, in violation of 18 However, we vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing after finding procedural error in the sentence. United States v. Young, 296 F. App x 314 (4th Cir. 2008) (No. 08-4050). On remand, the district court sentenced Young to 262 months imprisonment. Young filed a timely notice of appeal. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he has found no meritorious issues for appeal but argues that the district court constructively amended the indictment. In his pro se supplemental brief, Young challenges the validity of his guilty plea and alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We find the issue raised by counsel and Young s pro se challenge to his guilty plea to be foreclosed by the mandate rule. The mandate rule bars relitigation of issues expressly 2 or impliedly decided by the appellate court, as well as issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal. States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993). affirmed Young s conviction in his first United Because we appeal, he may not challenge the conviction in this appeal. In his pro se supplemental brief, Young claims that appellate counsel first appeal. rendered ineffective assistance during the Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring such claims in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists where the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. Because the record counsel does ineffective, not we conclusively decline to show consider that Young s Young s claim on was direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Young s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Young, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 3 United States for further review. If Young requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and materials legal before for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Young. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
