US v. Kenneth Reid, No. 09-4273 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH LOUIS REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00225-FDW-DCK-1) Submitted: June 23, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kenneth sentence Louis imposed possession with Reid following intent timely his to appeals guilty distribute plea fifty the to 240-month one grams count of more of or cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006). Reid s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court: (1) found a sufficient factual basis to accept Reid s guilty plea; (2) failed to ensure Reid s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; and (3) minimum erred in sentencing sentence. Reid Reid filed a to the pro se statutory mandatory supplemental claiming that his guilty plea was induced and involuntary. later filed an amended pro se ineffective assistance of counsel. supplemental brief brief, Reid alleging Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Because Reid did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or raise Procedure any 11 objections ( Rule 11 ) review for plain error. to the colloquy Federal in the Rule of district Criminal court, we United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. 2 United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). A defendant s substantial rights are affected if we determine that the error influenced impaired the his defendant s ability to decision evaluate with to plead eyes guilty open the and direct attendant risks of accepting criminal responsibility. United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532 (holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error). Counsel first argues that the district court failed to ensure a factual basis for the plea. Prior to accepting a guilty only plea, satisfied the that district there is court a need sufficient be factual subjectively basis for a conclusion that the defendant committed all of the elements of the offense. Cir. 1997). United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th At the sentencing hearing, the parties stipulated to the facts in the Presentence Investigation Report ( PSR ) as forming a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Upon review, we find that the district court did not err in accepting the facts as set out in the PSR. Counsel next questions whether Reid s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and whether Reid was competent to enter a guilty plea. supplemental Reid brief, argues claiming the same that 3 points counsel in his coerced pro him se into pleading guilty, that he did not understand the nature of the charge and consequences of his plea, and that he has diminished mental capacity. that Reid has assertions. However, there is no indication in the record diminished mental capacity beyond Reid s bald Additionally, Reid s sworn statements during the plea colloquy belie his remaining assertions. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) ( Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. ). find Reid s arguments without merit. colloquy reveals substantially that complied the with Our review of the plea magistrate the Therefore, we judge requirements of otherwise Rule 11 in ensuring Reid s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Counsel next questions whether the district court should have departed below the statutory mandatory minimum 240month sentence based on substantial assistance. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1, the district court may only impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum based on substantial assistance if the government makes a motion permitting the district court to do so. The Government did not do so; thus, the court had no authority to depart below that sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 125-26 (1996). In his amended pro se supplemental brief, Reid also claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to bring his 4 mental and emotional problems to the district court s attention, resulting in the denial of a competency hearing. A defendant may counsel raise a claim of ineffective assistance of on direct appeal if and only if it conclusively appears from the record that his counsel did not provide effective assistance. United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). To prove things: ineffective (1) that assistance counsel s the defendant representation must fell show two below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). In the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Our review of the record reveals no conclusive evidence that Reid s counsel did not adequately represent him. Accordingly, we decline to consider on direct appeal Reid s assertion that his attorney failed to render effective assistance. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Reid, in writing, of his right to 5 petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Reid requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Reid. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and conclusions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
