US v. Derrick Thomas, No. 09-4503 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4503 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK THOMAS, Dawkins, a/k/a Derrick Ballafonte, a/k/a Alton Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00121-MR-1) Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 17, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Gibson, Asheville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Derrick Thomas appeals the district court s judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to unauthorized reentry of a removed alien offense, in Counsel for previously violation Thomas of convicted of 8 ยง 1326(a), filed U.S.C. a brief an aggravated pursuant (b)(2) to felony (2006). Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asks the court to review whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing and whether the district judge exhibited bias in sentencing. Thomas has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising these same issues. Finding no error, we affirm. Thomas sentencing. cognizable contends that counsel was ineffective at Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not on establishes direct appeal ineffective unless the assistance. record conclusively United Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). States v. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has failed to meet the high burden necessary to advance an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. Next, Thomas sentencing because he sentencing arguments. asserts failed Our that to the judge adequately review was biased consider discloses no at Thomas s bias. The district judge made no comment that would suggest an apparent 2 disposition toward a party that is wrongful or inappropriate. United States v. Gordon, 61 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 1995). fact that the sentencing court matter ruled does not against Thomas demonstrate with bias. The respect to Liteky See a v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with meritorious judgment of the issues the requirements for appeal. district of Anders, and Accordingly, court. This court we we find affirm requires no the that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that such 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 of the motion was served on the client. As independent review motion an for dispense with we of have the independent oral already record, we examination argument because conducted deny as the Thomas s moot. the necessary facts pending Finally, and we 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.
