US v. Marion Anderson, No. 13-4145 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION SHAWN ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00231-LMB-1) Submitted: August 27, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Craig Hughes, LAW OFFICES OF D. CRAIG HUGHES, Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marion Shawn Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one kilograms or more §§ 841(a)(1), 846 count of of conspiracy cocaine, (2006). in Anderson to distribute violation was of sentenced five 21 U.S.C. to twenty years imprisonment, the statutory minimum sentence based on a prior felony drug conviction. Anderson contends Finding no error, we affirm. 1 counsel was ineffective for providing false assurances and misleading advice and that his effectiveness was stunted because he was suffering from nonHodgkin s lymphoma causing him to take numerous medications. He further contends that he proclaimed his innocence to counsel asserting that he was never part of the charged conspiracy but that counsel never investigated his version of events. Anderson also contends that his guilty plea was the result of coercion from counsel and the Government that rose after the motion to suppress was filed. He was told that if he followed through with the suppression motion, the proposed plea agreement would be withdrawn. He claims he was also told that the Government would not seek the increased statutory sentence. Anderson also claims counsel told him his Guidelines sentence would be 97 to 1 Because this is an appeal from the a final judgment of conviction, the Government s claim that the appeal cannot proceed without a certificate of appealability is without merit. 2 121 months and that the Government would move to reduce his sentence by as much as 65%. Anderson asserts that it was not until the Rule 11 hearing that he learned of the Government s notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) and the twenty year mandatory minimum sentence. Anderson further claims that the Government breached the plea agreement because it (1) filed the § 851 notice and supported the aggravating enhancements to his offense level; (2) did not support a total offense level of twenty-nine; and (3) failed to move for a downward departure under U.S. claims ineffective Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1. It assistance unless of the is well established counsel will appellate ineffective assistance. 435 (4th Cir. 2008). not be record that reviewed on conclusively of direct appeal demonstrates United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, The record in this instance falls far short of supporting Anderson s ineffective assistance of claims. Accordingly, we will not review the claims. Anderson did not claim in the district court at sentencing that the Government breached the plea agreement, so we review for plain error. 129, 133-34 (2009). Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. To succeed on this claim, Anderson must establish (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the defendant s substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects 3 the fairness, proceedings. Cir. 2009). integrity, or public reputation of judicial United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640, 645 (4th We conclude that the record fails to show that there was a breach of any kind by the Government. Accordingly, there was no error, much less plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 2 We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 Anderson also contends that the appeal waiver that was in the plea agreement should not be enforced. Because the Government is not seeking to enforce the appeal waiver, this claim is moot. 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.
