Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Alexander, 4th Cir. (2002)
United States v. Alexander, 4th Cir. (2002)
No. 01-4033
COUNSEL
Michael A. Kolb, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen
C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Jackson Alexander, III appeals his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
cocaine within 1000 feet of a protected area, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1), 846, 860. Alexanders attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising several potential
issues. Alexander has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he
contends the district court improperly relied on prior uncounseled
misdemeanor convictions to establish his criminal history category for
sentencing purposes.*
We find Alexanders sentence of 180 months imprisonment does
not implicate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because
the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum of 480 months
as set forth in 860. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199202 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937 (2001). We also reject
Alexanders contention the district court improperly increased his
total offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
2D1.1(b)(1) (1998).
Alexander next challenges his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. We
generally review the adequacy of a guilty plea de novo, but in the
Rule 11 context, violations are evaluated for harmless error. United
States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United
States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995)). Our careful review
of the record finds no error, harmless or otherwise. See United States
v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
Finally, out of an abundance of caution, Alexanders attorney notes
that Alexanders guilty plea does not waive claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Counsel candidly
acknowledges, however, that he cannot bring to our attention any
prejudicial error by Alexanders former attorney or instances of pro*The remaining contentions made in Alexanders pro se supplemental
brief were raised in the brief filed by counsel.