Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4334
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:12-cr-00520-TLW-1)
Submitted:
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Ellison Lakell Cooper appeals his conviction and 300month sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
written Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
11(c)(1)(C)
plea
agreement,
to
one
Coopers
court
erroneously
denied
Coopers
final
motion
to
Cooper filed
counsel
pro
se
supplemental
brief
arguing
that
plea
and
is
relinquishing
by
pleading
2
guilty.
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
11(b)(1); see United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir.
1991).
defendants
The
plea
district
is
court
voluntary,
must
is
also
ensure
supported
by
that
the
sufficient
Fed.
to
counsel
absolute.
of
his
We review this
own
choosing,
that
right
is
not
v. Attorney Gen. of N.C., 786 F.2d 610, 612 (4th Cir. 1986).
In
the
administration
of
justice.
United
States
v.
Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir. 1988); see United States v.
Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152 (2006) ([A] trial court[]
[has] wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice
against
the
needs
of
fairness
to
conclude
discretion
when
that
the
it
denied
and
against
of
its
district
court
Coopers
3
demands
did
final
not
request
abuse
its
for
new
counsel.
we
note
communication
had
not
completely
broken
down
between Cooper and counsel and that the motion was filed a mere
two weeks before sentencing.
Turning to Coopers sentence, we note that Cooper and
the Government stipulated to a sentence as provided by Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).
of
the
Guidelines,
or
(3)
is
greater
than
the
United States v.
Calderon,
2005)
omitted).
428
F.3d
Here,
928,
the
932
(10th
district
court
Cir.
imposed
(citations
the
specific
sentence to which Cooper agreed, and the sentence did not exceed
the statutory maximum for either conviction.
Moreover, it could
Guidelines
11(c)(1)(C)
calculation
because
agreement
of
the
it
and
was
not
Guidelines
based
on
on
the
range.
See
the
parties
district
United
Rule
courts
States
v.
Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 339-40 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v.
Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005).
We therefore
Finally,
counsel
was
Cooper
and
ineffective.
counsel
To
prove
question
a
claim
whether
of
plea
ineffective
was
deficient,
and
(2)
that
the
deficient
Strickland v. Washington,
conclusively
appears
on
the
record.
United
We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper has
failed
to
demonstrate
that
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel
We therefore decline to
of
court
the
requires
right
to
that
petition
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Cooper,
Court
of
in
the
contentions
this
court
are
and
adequately
argument
presented
will
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART