US v. Phillip Strickland, No. 08-4709 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PHILLIP ALPHONZA STRICKLAND, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00078-BO-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Alphonza Strickland pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Counsel for Strickland has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining district court s that order Strickland denying wishes his to motion challenge to suppress the an incriminating statement he gave to investigators, and he asks this court to allow him to withdraw from further representation. Strickland was provided notice of his right supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so. has declined to file a responsive brief. to file a The Government Finding no error, we affirm the district court s judgment. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. After a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing at which Strickland admitted his guilt and attested that his plea was knowing and voluntary, the district court heard counsel s argument regarding the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and sentenced Strickland to the statutory (2006). right to mandatory minimum. 21 See U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) Because Strickland s plea was not conditioned on his challenge the district court s order denying his suppression motion, we find that Strickland did not preserve his 2 right to challenge the ruling on appeal. United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Having reviewed the record in this case and finding no meritorious issues for review, we affirm the district court s judgment. We representation deny at this counsel s motion to juncture. This withdraw court requires from that counsel inform Strickland, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Strickland requests that a petition be filed, but If 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 Strickland. served on We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
