US v. Donnie Verdell, No. 10-4317 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4317 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DONNIE RAYVON VERDELL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00320-WO-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnie Rayvon Verdell pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006), and felon §§ 922(g)(1), sentence. in possession 924(a)(2) of (2006). a He firearm, received a 18 U.S.C. 168-month On appeal, counsel for Verdell has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there questioning are no meritorious whether (1) grounds Verdell s for appeal, but waiver is appellate enforceable; (2) counsel below rendered ineffective assistance; (3) Verdell s voluntary post-arrest statements were detrimental to him; and (4) Verdell s sentence is reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Verdell has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. Counsel first challenges Verdell s appellate waiver. the enforceability of However, the Government has not filed a motion to dismiss asserting the waiver, and we do not sua sponte States v. enforce Blick, appellate 408 F.3d waivers. 162, 168 See (4th generally Cir. 2005) United (citing United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, we find this issue is moot. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires appellate consideration of 2 both the procedural sentence. court Id. and substantive reasonableness of a This court must assess whether the district properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 the selected sentence. (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this court presumes a sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that Verdell s sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable. properly calculated Verdell s Guidelines is both The district court range (262 to 327 months of imprisonment), treated the Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Given the circumstances of Verdell s case, the district court granted a downward variance to the twenty-year mandatory minimum, and then granted the Government s motion for a thirty percent downward departure, based on assistance, to 168 months imprisonment. Verdell s substantial The district court clearly based its sentence on its individualized assessment of 3 the facts of the case, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Verdell also suggests counsel was ineffective in not raising defenses of jurisdiction and/or innocent possession of the firearm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel provided ineffective assistance. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We find that Verdell s claims are not ripe for review at this time. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no meritorious issues for review. * the district withdraw. court s judgment and deny Accordingly, we affirm counsel s motion to This court requires that counsel inform Verdell in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Verdell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Verdell. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately * As counsel concedes, Verdell s post-arrest admissions were voluntary and we find no meritorious issue for appeal in this regard. 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
