Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    United States v. Willie Michael Bullard, 53 F.3d 329, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Willie Bullard appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Bullard's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Bullard's conviction and sentence, finding that: (1) the district court properly imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison given the large drug quantity involved; and (2) Bullard's Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence had previously been rejected. The Fourth Circuit also denied Bullard's request for new counsel, finding no demonstration of good cause.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Willie Michael Bullard, 53 F.3d 329, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views3 pages
    Willie Bullard appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Bullard's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Bullard's conviction and sentence, finding that: (1) the district court properly imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison given the large drug quantity involved; and (2) Bullard's Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence had previously been rejected. The Fourth Circuit also denied Bullard's request for new counsel, finding no demonstration of good cause.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-05-02 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 53 F.3d 329 Docket: 94-5662

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Willie Bullard appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Bullard's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Bullard's conviction and sentence, finding that: (1) the district court properly imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison given the large drug quantity involved; and (2) Bullard's Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence had previously been rejected. The Fourth Circuit also denied Bullard's request for new counsel, finding no demonstration of good cause.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views3 pages

    United States v. Willie Michael Bullard, 53 F.3d 329, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Willie Bullard appealed his conviction for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Bullard's attorney submitted an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Bullard's conviction and sentence, finding that: (1) the district court properly imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison given the large drug quantity involved; and (2) Bullard's Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence had previously been rejected. The Fourth Circuit also denied Bullard's request for new counsel, finding no demonstration of good cause.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    53 F.

    3d 329
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Willie Michael BULLARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 94-5662.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 18, 1995.
    Decided May 2, 1995.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
    West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-94-30)
    Todd W. Reed, REED & PETTYS, Charleston, WV, for Appellant.
    Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael O. Callaghan,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for Appellee.
    S.D.W.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Willie Bullard appeals from his conviction, entered pursuant to his guilty plea,
    for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
    U.S.C. Sec. 846 (1988). Bullard's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising arguments relating to
    Bullard's sentence, but also stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
    arguments on appeal. Bullard has also personally filed a brief on appeal.

    Initially, we reject counsel's challenges to the district court's imposition of a


    term of five years of supervised release following Bullard's ten-year sentence.
    Under the terms of the applicable statute, the court lacked discretion to impose
    any lesser term of supervised release. See 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A) (West
    1988 & Supp.1993). We also reject Bullard's claims that the court erred by
    finding that it was required to impose upon him the mandatory minimum
    sentence of ten years incarceration pursuant to Sec. 841(b). The object of the
    conspiracy in this case involved 9,891.8 grams of cocaine, a quantity which
    subjected Bullard to the mandatory minimum period prescribed by the statute.
    See United States v. Irvin, 2 F.3d 72, 78 (4th Cir.1993). While Bullard
    contends that the mandatory minimum was not intended to apply to offenders
    such as himself who are not proven to be "drug kingpins," we note that the only
    relevant authority Bullard cites for this proposition explicitly rejects his view.
    See United States v. Martinez-Zayas, 857 F.2d 122, 131-32 (3d Cir.1988).

    Bullard also argues that imposition of a mandatory ten-year sentence for his
    crime violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
    punishment. This Court, however, has previously considered and rejected this
    argument. See United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 860 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 488 U.S. 983 (1988). Bullard's remaining claims pertain to the conduct
    of his attorney at sentencing, and amount to allegations that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel. Unless, however, counsel's ineffectiveness is
    apparent from the record, we have held that such claims should be raised in a
    collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988), rather than on direct
    appeal. See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir.1992). Since
    counsel's ineffectiveness is not apparent from the record in this case, we decline
    to review Bullard's contentions.

    We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the
    requirements of Anders, supra, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We
    note that counsel has filed a motion with this Court to withdraw as counsel for
    Bullard, and that Bullard requests a new attorney in his brief. We further note,
    however, that indigent defendants have no right to a particular attorney, and that
    substitute counsel may only be demanded for good cause, which Bullard has
    not demonstrated. See United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1211 (1988).

    Moreover, this Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
    the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court at that time
    for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a

    copy thereof was served on the client. Accordingly, counsel's motion is denied.
    6

    We affirm the district court's judgment order. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like