US v. Tyrone Yancey, No. 14-4327 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRONE YANCEY, a/k/a Whoadie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the United States of Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00191-FL-1) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Yancey pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). sentence. He received an eighty-seven-month On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Yancey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary in light of the drug quantity attributed at sentencing, the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was adequate, the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable, and ineffective assistance of counsel prosecutorial misconduct is evident on the record. not filed a pro se supplemental brief. to file a response. or Yancey has The Government declined We affirm. Because Yancey did not move to withdraw his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no error, as the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when accepting Yancey’s plea. we therefore conclude Given no indication to the contrary, that Yancey’s plea was knowing voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). 2 and See United Next we review Yancey’s sentence using an abuse of discretion standard. 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness Gall v. United States, The court first reviews for significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to Substantive adequately explain reasonableness the is selected determined by sentence. Id. considering the totality of the circumstances, and if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines range, presumption of reasonableness. this court applies a United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). The district court imposed a sentence of eighty-seven months, which was within the Sentencing Guidelines range. We conclude that Yancey has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness and that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Although counsel raised whether Yancey received ineffective assistance of counsel, he stated that he could find no evidence of ineffective assistance. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance direct appeal. claims are not generally addressed on United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th 3 Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record. United Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). States v. Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude that any claim should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. Neither is prosecutorial misconduct evident on the record. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Yancey’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Yancey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Yancey 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 that a copy thereof was served on Yancey. 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 4