US v. Dante Foster, No. 13-4347 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANTE FOSTER, a/k/a Donte Foster, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00319-WDQ-1) Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 7, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICE OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dante Foster appeals the district court s judgment sentencing him to 174 months imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and possession of cocaine with intent violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). to distribute, in On appeal, Foster argues that the district court improperly used a prior Maryland state court conviction to enhance his criminal history category. He also argues that the district court s sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to explain its reasons for overruling his objection to the 1994 conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Foster argues that his state conviction was obtained without the Amendment. assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth When a defendant challenges a prior conviction on this ground, he bears the burden of showing the invalidity of the prior conviction. 316 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, The defendant must overcome a presumption that the state court informed him of his right to counsel as it was required to do, and that, if he was not represented, it was because he waived his right to counsel. U.S. 20, 28-34 (1992). See Parke v. Raley, 506 We review de novo the district court s ruling on a claim that a prior conviction is invalid for lack of 2 counsel. United States v. Hondo, 366 F.3d 363, 365 (4th Cir. 2004). Foster relies upon his unsworn statement at sentencing that his prior conviction was obtained without counsel and the presentence report s ( PSR ) statement that attorney representation was unknown as to the prior conviction. statement in the PSR has no impact on the The presumption of regularity accorded to prior convictions, and we have previously held that the self-serving testimony of the defendant generally not sufficient to overcome that presumption. States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105, 111 (4th Cir. 1997). proves no exception. We therefore conclude that is United This case Foster has failed to prove the invalidity of his prior state conviction. Foster s argument that the district court was required to more fully explain its reasons for rejecting his argument also fails. We find that the district court s handling of this matter, while sparse, was not erroneous. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument the because judgment the below. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will 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.
