US v. Shawn Davis, No. 11-4953 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 6, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4953 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAWN JERMAINE DAVIS, a/k/a Big Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00416-TLW-5) Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Jermaine Davis pled guilty in accordance with a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 280 grams or more of cocaine base, fifty kilograms or more of marijuana, and a quantity methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). sentenced to 264 months in prison. attorney has California, a brief 386 U.S. 738 that concluding Davis filed there are has filed additional issue. a pro in (1967), no He was Davis now appeals. accordance with raising two of His Anders issues but meritorious issues supplemental se for v. appeal. brief raising an questions whether the We affirm. I In the Anders brief, counsel district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. the transcript of the Rule compliance with the Rule. Davis plea was knowing 11 proceeding Our review of discloses full Further, the record reflects that and factual basis for the plea. voluntary and that there was a We therefore affirm the conviction. II Counsel reasonable. next Davis questions advisory whether Guidelines 2 the range sentence was is 262-327 months. There investigation were report, no which objections the court to the adopted. presentence In imposing sentence, the district court considered the Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors, and the arguments of counsel. * Further, the court mentioned that: Davis offense was both significant and serious; he had an extensive criminal history, including several drug convictions and a conviction for a violent offense; he had served little time for his past offenses; and he had shown no respect for the law. Weighing in Davis favor was the fact that he had cooperated with the United States. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We first determine whether the district court Id. correctly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the applicable presented by § 3553(a) the selected sentence. (4th Cir. 2010). factors, parties, and analyzed sufficiently the arguments explained the United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 With respect to the explanation of the sentence, the court must place on the record an individualized * Davis declined allocution. 3 assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 576. Lynn, 592 F.3d at This review requires us to consider the totality of the circumstances and reasonable i.e., to decide whether the whether [d]istrict the sentence [j]udge abused was his discretion in determining that the § 3553(a) factors supported the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 56. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 264-month sentence. The court fully complied with the required procedures, properly calculating the Guidelines range, considering the arguments presented, providing an individualized § 3553(a) factors. Guidelines range, assessment, The is and sentence, presumptively taking into account the which falls within the reasonable, see United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), and Davis did not rebut this presumption. III In his pro se brief, Davis claims that his attorney was ineffective. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes counsel s 4 objectively unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice. 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. United States v. Benton, 2008). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant ordinarily must bring an ineffectiveness claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the record, especially the transcript of sentencing, we conclude that ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the record. We therefore decline to address the merits of the claim. IV In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Davis conviction and sentence. motion to withdraw is denied at this time. Counsel s This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis 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 Pratt. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 5 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
