US v. Jeffrey McCormick, No. 13-4951 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4951 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY LAWSON MCCORMICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:13-cr-00011-NKM-RSB-1) Submitted: March 24, 2015 Decided: March 31, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helen Eckert Phillips, ALLEN, KOPET & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ashley Brooke Neese, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Lawson McCormick pled guilty to manufacturing 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced McCormick to 166 months’ imprisonment and also adjudged him permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 862(a)(1)(C) (2012). 386 Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, U.S. 738 grounds for competent (1967), appeal to plead stating but that there questioning guilty. were whether McCormick no meritorious McCormick filed a was pro se supplemental brief, raising the same issue as counsel and other challenges to his conviction and sentence. On review of the record, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the district court plainly erred by adjudging McCormick permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits. Conceding that the court plainly erred, the Government has moved to vacate McCormick’s sentence and remand for resentencing. remand. McCormick has consented to the For the following reasons, we grant the Government’s motion, affirm vacate the the portion conviction, of the affirm the sentence sentence adjudging in part, McCormick permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits, and remand for further proceedings. 2 Turning first to McCormick’s conviction, both counsel and McCormick question whether McCormick was competent to plead guilty. 1 McCormick further argues in his pro se supplemental brief that the district court should have conducted a competency hearing before accepting his plea. move in the district court to Because McCormick did not withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 hearing, district court’s inquiry into McCormick’s competence, for plain error. United States including v. Martinez, the 277 sufficiency F.3d 517, of 525 the (4th Cir. 2002); see United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining plain error review in guilty plea context). It is axiomatic that, “[b]efore a court may accept a guilty plea, it must ensure that the defendant is competent to enter the plea.” omitted). Moussaoui, 591 F.3d at 291 (internal quotation marks “When a response in a plea colloquy raises questions about the defendant’s state of mind, the court must broaden its inquiry to satisfy itself that the plea is being made knowingly 1 In his pro se supplemental brief, McCormick also challenges the validity of the search warrant and the legality of his post-arrest statement. We conclude that McCormick waived these challenges when he pled guilty. See United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he defendant who has pled guilty has no non-jurisdictional ground upon which to attack that judgment except the inadequacy of the plea.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 and voluntarily.” United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 382 (4th (internal Cir. 2012) quotation marks omitted). For McCormick to prevail on his claim, he “must establish that the trial court ignored facts raising a bona fide doubt regarding his competency,” rendering the court’s decision not to order a competency hearing an abuse of discretion. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d at 291 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). We conclude discretion by that medications, district court McCormick’s accepting competency hearing. several the plea did not without abuse its ordering a When McCormick indicated that he was taking the court fulfilled its obligation by ensuring that those medications were not affecting McCormick’s ability to think clearly or make decisions. F.3d at 382 (“With a medicated See Nicholson, 676 defendant, a court should ascertain the effect, if any, of the medication on his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea.”). Moreover, when the court discovered that McCormick had been treated for alcohol and narcotic addiction, it currently under influence the confirmed of that drugs McCormick or alcohol. was not While McCormick did state that he was feeling “a little slouchy,” that description related ability understand to to his the physical condition proceedings. and Finally, not his although McCormick claims on appeal that his liver conditions caused him to be unable think clearly and that he was depressed and under 4 the influence of heroin at the time of his plea, he neither advised the court of these impairments at the time of the Rule 11 hearing nor moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was incompetent to enter it (or on any ground at all). Next, “under a we review McCormick’s deferential sentence abuse-of-discretion challenges supplemental brief. to his sentence reasonableness standard.” United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). McCormick’s for Gall v. We find no merit to raised in his pro se Specifically, we conclude that the court’s observation that McCormick would be near the end of his life when he was released from prison, considering the severity of his health conditions, in no way suggests that the court was biased against challenge probation to McCormick. Also sentencing officer based unavailing enhancements on specific is McCormick’s recommended offense by the characteristics; McCormick’s Sentencing Guidelines range was not calculated based on these enhancements, but on his status as a career offender. Finally, we find no evidence to support McCormick’s claim that the Government breached the plea agreement. We agree with the parties, however, that the district court plainly erred by adjudging McCormick permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits. “[a]ny individual who is Section 862(a)(1)(C) provides that convicted of any Federal or State offense consisting of the distribution of controlled substances 5 shall . . . upon a third or subsequent conviction for such an offense be permanently ineligible for all Federal benefits.” U.S.C. § 862(a)(1)(C) (emphasis added). 21 Because distribution is not an element of the offense to which McCormick pled guilty, we conclude that the district court plainly erred by adjudging McCormick permanently ineligible for federal benefits. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion, affirm the conviction, affirm the sentence in part, vacate the portion of the sentence adjudging McCormick permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits, and remand for further proceedings. 2 We also direct the district court to correct the judgment to reflect that McCormick pled guilty to manufacturing 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. This writing, court of his See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. requires right to that counsel petition United States for further review. the inform Supreme McCormick, Court of in the If McCormick requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to 2 On remand, the district court may assess whether denial of federal benefits is appropriate under another subsection of 21 U.S.C. § 862. 6 withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McCormick. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 7
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.
