US v. Douglas Pendergrass, No. 11-5134 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5134 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DOUGLAS ANTHONY PENDERGRASS, a/k/a Willie Lee Atkinson, a/k/a Demarcus Smith, a/k/a Emmanuel Snowden, a/k/a Raymond James Morgan, a/k/a Tyrone R. Grier, a/k/a Eric Angelo Turner, a/k/a Darrell Duane Jones, a/k/a Suman Cuddapah, a/k/a Odell Francis Gaymon, a/k/a Craig Anthony Johnson, a/k/a Anthony James Pendergrass, a/k/a Michael Anthony Eugene Williams, a/k/a Donneyel Frazier Taylor, a/k/a David Anthony Pendergrass, a/k/a Douglas Antoine Pendergrass, a/k/a Ronald Scott Bridges, a/k/a Kyle Tremaine Mobley, a/k/a Arnold A. Daniels, a/k/a Ewon Suman Cuddapah, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-01049-RBH-1) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: January 8, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessica Salvini, SALVINI Carolina, for Appellant. & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Jamie Lea Schoen, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Anthony Pendergrass pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006), and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel files a brief raising one issue: Pendergrass received ineffective assistance of counsel. whether Counsel raises four other issues pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but constitutional questioning: rights were (1) violated whether when he Pendergrass was denied the ability to challenge the validity of the superseding indictment against him; (2) whether the district court erred by denying Pendergrass post-guilty plea motion to dismiss on the grounds of ineffective assistance; (3) whether the district court erred by sua sponte failing to recuse itself from Pendergrass case; and (4) whether the district court erred by denying Pendergrass objections to his criminal history calculation as set forth in his revised presentence supplemental counsel and briefs, other report. also claims. Pendergrass, in alleges ineffective For reasons the pro se assistance of that his follow, we affirm in part, and dismiss in part. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable establishes on direct appeal, ineffective unless assistance. 3 the record United conclusively States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, claims of ineffective assistance generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 590 (4th Cir. 1994). In this case, Pendergrass would have to show that but for counsel s alleged errors, he would not have pled guilty. Pendergrass Hill has v. Lockhart, failed to 474 meet U.S. the 52, 53-59 challenging (1985). burden establishing ineffective assistance at this juncture. of Thus, we affirm Pendergrass claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. As argued by the Government, Pendergrass has waived his right to appeal the remainder of the issues he and his counsel have raised, because of the appellate waiver contained in his plea agreement. The agreement was reviewed at Pendergrass plea hearing and Pendergrass acknowledged that he was waiving assistance his and appellate prosecutorial rights, except misconduct. for ineffective Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that Pendergrass has waived review appellate of the 4 remaining issues. Thus, we dismiss the remainder of the issues raised in Pendergrass appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Pendergrass conviction and sentence. We further grant Pendergrass motion to file a second supplemental brief. This court requires that counsel inform Pendergrass, in writing, of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Pendergrass 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 on that dispense a copy with contentions are oral thereof was argument adequately served because presented in the the Pendergrass. facts We and legal materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 5
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.
