Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    United States v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Lee Catoe pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and disposal of government property. He later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. 2) The appellate court reviewed the guilty plea hearing transcript and found that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 requirements, ensuring that Catoe understood the charges and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. 3) The appellate court also determined that Catoe waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions, through a valid waiver in his plea agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    45 views4 pages
    1) David Lee Catoe pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and disposal of government property. He later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. 2) The appellate court reviewed the guilty plea hearing transcript and found that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 requirements, ensuring that Catoe understood the charges and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. 3) The appellate court also determined that Catoe waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions, through a valid waiver in his plea agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-05-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-4782

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) David Lee Catoe pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and disposal of government property. He later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. 2) The appellate court reviewed the guilty plea hearing transcript and found that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 requirements, ensuring that Catoe understood the charges and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. 3) The appellate court also determined that Catoe waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions, through a valid waiver in his plea agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    45 views4 pages

    United States v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Lee Catoe pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and disposal of government property. He later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. 2) The appellate court reviewed the guilty plea hearing transcript and found that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 requirements, ensuring that Catoe understood the charges and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. 3) The appellate court also determined that Catoe waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions, through a valid waiver in his plea agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID LEE CATOE,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 03-4782

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (CR-02-471)
    Submitted: April 26, 2004
    Decided: May 6, 2004
    Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    R. Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF COIT YARBOROUGH,
    Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr.,
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley
    Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. CATOE

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    David Lee Catoe appeals his convictions and sentence following
    his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess and distribute powder cocaine
    and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000), and disposal of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 641
    (2000). He also appeals the district courts denial of his motion to
    withdraw his guilty plea. Catoes attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although
    counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he challenges the district courts denial of Catoes motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea, as well as its application of sentencing enhancements for
    possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of a drug
    offense pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(b)(1)
    (2002) and assumption of a leadership role in the offense pursuant to
    USSG 3B1.1(c). Catoe filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which
    he also challenged the district courts application of the sentencing
    enhancements. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the
    briefs and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. Finding
    no error, we affirm.
    Where, as here, a defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty plea
    before sentencing must demonstrate a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal of the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). A "fair and just" reason
    is one that essentially "challenges the fairness of the Fed. R. Crim. 11
    proceeding" or "challenges the fulfillment of a promise or condition
    emanating from the proceeding." United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d
    1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). A court should closely scrutinize the Rule
    11 colloquy and attach a strong presumption that the plea is final and
    binding if the Rule 11 proceeding is adequate. Id. We review the district courts denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of
    discretion. United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir.
    1996).

    UNITED STATES v. CATOE

    In determining whether a defendant is entitled to withdraw his


    guilty plea, the district court must consider (1) whether the defendant
    has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or voluntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between the entry of the
    plea and the filing of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had
    close assistance of competent counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will
    cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. United States v. Moore,
    931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
    We find that the district court properly weighed the Moore factors
    in denying Catoes motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, a
    review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing discloses that the
    district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Catoes guilty
    plea. The court advised Catoe of the elements of the offense to which
    he was pleading guilty and concluded he understood them. The court
    also thoroughly apprised Catoe of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and the possible sentences he faced. The court further
    ascertained that Catoe was entering his plea voluntarily and that he
    was satisfied with the services of counsel. Thus, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding no "fair and just reason" for the withdrawal of Catoes guilty plea.
    Moreover, we find that Catoe waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence either directly or in post-conviction proceedings,
    with the exception of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
    prosecutorial misconduct. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3742 (2000), as
    long as it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forego
    the right to appeal. United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165 (4th Cir.
    1991). Because Catoes waiver of appellate rights was knowing and
    intelligent, he may not appeal the district courts application of the
    sentencing enhancements.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
    this case, including the Rule 11 and sentencing transcripts, and have
    found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Catoes
    convictions and sentence, as well as the district courts denial of his
    motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This court requires that counsel

    UNITED STATES v. CATOE

    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 to withdraw from representation at that time. Counsels motion must state that a copy
    thereof was served on Catoe.
    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