UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4608 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN ANTHONY BROWN, a/k/a Algernon J. Goodwin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00865-TLW-1) Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. Harrison Saunders, VI, LAW OFFICE OF S. HARRISON SAUNDERS, VI, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Anthony Brown appeals his conviction and 90-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), (c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). 1 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions, however, whether Brown’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, whether Brown’s sentence is reasonable, and whether Brown was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in his related 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Brown was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief and has filed several supplemental briefs. 2 We affirm. 1 Brown subsequently filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), contending, among other things, that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being directed to do so. See United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1993). Without an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted relief on Brown’s Peak claim and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. In accordance with Peak, the district court entered an amended criminal judgment, from which Brown and his counsel both filed timely notices of appeal. After the district court entered the amended criminal judgment—the subject of this appeal—the district court granted Brown’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion in the § 2255 proceeding, vacated its prior order, and purported to vacate the amended criminal judgment, and, in a separate order, rejected on the merits Brown’s ineffective assistance claim relating to a role-in-the-offense enhancement and found all other ineffective assistance claims waived. Because the district court entered the amended criminal judgment and Brown filed his notice of appeal before the district court granted Rule 59(e) relief, we conclude that the portion of the district court’s order purporting to vacate the amended criminal judgment does not affect this appeal. See Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258 ) (4th Cir. 2014). 2 Specifically, Brown contends that the district court’s bias and “overbearing demeanor” created a conflict of interest between Brown and defense counsel that caused counsel to provide ineffective assistance; that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly investigate and prepare effective mitigating evidence and by advising 2 A guilty plea is valid if the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals