US v. Michael Pope, No. 10-4544 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4544 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL GLENN POPE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00046-MR-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael sentence following intentionally knowingly was and pay jointly and appeal, Pope s attempt and in sentenced to appeals guilty on marks, ordered Pope his traffic using, counterfeit Pope Glenn in severally plea to of in counsel filed a brief in U.S.C. his to with months with and conspiracy to goods while such ยง goods, 2320 (2006). imprisonment restitution, liable conviction traffic 18 thirty-seven $148,645.79 his connection violation to from for which he coconspirators. pursuant to and was On Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues on appeal but asking the court to review: (1) whether Pope knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal; motion (2) to whether dismiss the for trial court erred prosecutorial by delay; denying (3) Pope s whether the record supports a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) whether the record misconduct; and (5) procedurally and supplemental brief incorrectly calculated; supports whether substantively asserting a claim the (2) the prosecutorial sentence imposed Pope a valid. that: of (1) his filed pro restitution Government engaged was se was in misconduct; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the issues raised do not entitle Pope to relief. 2 The district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Pope s guilty plea, which was knowing and voluntary, and which Pope did not move to withdraw. Pope s plea waived his claim of pre-indictment delay because he did not enter a conditional plea reserving this issue. 490 (4th Cir. 1983). United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, We also conclude that Pope s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Finally, because the record does not support Pope s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, we decline to consider these claims on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Pope s conviction and sentence. Pope s motion for bail. We deny This court requires that counsel inform Pope, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pope 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 Pope. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
