US v. Patricia Elliott, No. 08-4289 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4289 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PATRICIA LEMLY ELLIOTT, a/k/a Patty Sandford Ferrara, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00027-LHT-4) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Adam Christopher Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patricia Lemly Elliott pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana and was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issues: assistance of (1) trial whether Elliott counsel; (2) received whether ineffective the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) whether Elliott was erroneously sentenced. Elliott s For the reasons that follow, we affirm. claims that she received ineffective assistance at her plea and sentencing hearings are belied by the record. Moreover, we find no ineffective assistance conclusively appearing on the record, as required to establish the claim on direct appeal. United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003). Next, Elliott claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct by telling her that if she did not pled guilty, the Government would pursue a twenty-year sentence against her. We note that a prosecutor is allowed to threaten a defendant with increased punishment if a defendant refuses to accept a plea agreement. Based on Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978). Elliott s prior drug 2 felony and the Government s 18 U.S.C. § 851 twenty-year (2006). (2006) minimum notice, sentence. Elliott See was 18 eligible U.S.C. for a § 841(b)(1)(A) Thus, this claim fails. Finally, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Elliott. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). In particular, we find no error in the calculation of her criminal history. Guidelines criminal Manual history § 4A1.1 points comment. based on See U.S Sentencing (n.3) prior (2003) (counting sentences occurring within ten years of commencement of the instant offense). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case, including the issues raised in Elliott s pro se supplemental brief, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 3 and legal contentions are adequately 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.
