Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-4805
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (4:05-cr-00055-FL)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Eric Odell Gadson
pled guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113
(a) and (d) (2000), and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) (2000).
Nevertheless,
Gadson
We
affirm.
Counsel
first
questions
the
district
courts
psychologists
district
recommendation
court
further
that
questioned
Gadson
was
Gadson.
competent,
Based
on
the
this
See United
States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
standard
of
review
and
providing
standard
for
competency
determination).
Counsel further questions the validity of Gadsons guilty
plea.
withdraw his plea, this court reviews the challenge to the adequacy
of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
Prior to accepting a
guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the defendant understands
the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory minimum and
maximum sentences, and other various rights, so it is clear that
the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his plea.
The
court must also determine whether there is a factual basis for the
plea.
- 3 -
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
Assuming the
- 4 -
United
One reason
that
sentence
likely
reflects
the
3553(a)
Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Davis,
53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995).
The district courts explanation should provide some
indication that it considered the 3553(a) factors as to the
defendant and the potentially meritorious arguments raised by the
parties at sentencing.
- 5 -
require
lengthy
Circumstances
explanation.
may
well
make
Rita,
clear
127
that
S.
the
Ct.
judge
at
2468.
rests
his
Id.
of
the
3553(a)
factors.
Gadsons
188-month
Guidelines
range
and
below
the
statutory
maximum.
924(c)(1)(C)(I).
Therefore,
under
the
See 18
standard
counsel
questions
whether
Gadson
received
unless
the
record
conclusively
establishes
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
it.
To
- 6 -
1997).
may
move
representation.
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 7 -