By Taylor Ey
On Thursday, October 9, 2014, the Fourth Circuit rendered its decision in United States v. Bennett, an appeal from the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. There were three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in accepting Defendant’s guilty plea, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing a sentence, and (3) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing.
Defendant Bennett accepted plea agreement, pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and to possess pseudophedrine knowing and having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Bennett was sentenced to forty-five months’ imprisonment, after a reduction for substantial assistance to the Government.
The court reviewed the guilty plea issue for plain error because Defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant must demonstrate that a plain error has affected his substantial rights. A defendant meets his burden by showing that there is reasonable certainty that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. Because the transcript showed that the district court ensured that the plea was supported in fact, and that Defendant entered the plea voluntarily and knowingly, there was no plain error.
The court reviewed the sentencing issue for abuse of discretion. Under Gall v. United States, the appellate court should consider both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The court first reviews procedural reasonableness, considering several factors, including the sentencing calculation, the opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, and the sentencing explanation. If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, the court then reviews substantive reasonableness. Proper calculation is presumptive on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. However, defendant may rebut the presumption if he shows that the sentence is unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. This court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it correctly calculated the sentence, heard argument from counsel, explained the sentence, and Defendant did not offer grounds for rebuttal.
On the third issue, the court concluded that the record did not “conclusively establish ineffectiveness of counsel,” thus Defendant must assert this claim in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012).
The court affirmed.
