US v. Sarena Mobley, No. 11-5159 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SARENA A. MOBLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00124-MOC-10) Submitted: May 24, 2012 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 30, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol Ann Bauer, Morgantown, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sarena A. Mobley pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement violation of to 18 conspiracy U.S.C. to § 371 commit (2006). mortgage The fraud, district sentenced Mobley to thirty-three months in prison. in court On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning, first, whether trial counsel were ineffective whether the in coercing Government Mobley to committed plead guilty, prosecutorial and second, misconduct in failing to move for a downward departure based on substantial assistance. Mobley filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in not preparing her for sentencing and sentencing proceedings. that the district court rushed the We affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes counsel s objectively unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice. (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 Instead, such claims are most appropriately pursued in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011). See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). deficient Here, the record offers no clear indication of performance by counsel. 2 Therefore, we decline to address in this appeal both the pro se and counseled claims of ineffective counsel. As to counsel s claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the filing of a motion for sentence reduction based on substantial assistance is within the Government s sole discretion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1. However, a court may remedy the Government s refusal to move for such a reduction if (1) the Government has obligated itself to move for a reduction under the terms of the plea agreement, United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir. 1991), or (2) the Government s refusal to move for a reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to any legitimate Government end. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the plea agreement gave the Government full discretion to decide whether Mobley s § 5K1.1 motion. assistance was substantial and warranted a Moreover, counsel concedes that Mobley provided no assistance and therefore no departure was warranted. After that Mobley s contradicted Anders, we thoroughly remaining by have the reviewing claim record examined the is without before us. the entire 3 record, we conclude merit and squarely In record accordance for with potentially meritorious issues and have found none. We affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, United of court her States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If inform Supreme she Mobley, Court requests of in the that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move to withdraw. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mobley. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
