On appeal from The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte ">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-04-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. Christopher Partlow

Case Number: 18-4356

Judge: Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges

Court:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte

Plaintiff's Attorney: Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney

Defendant's Attorney:


Richmond, VA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.


Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and heroin charge.



Christopher Michael Partlow appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). 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 the plea was supported by a sufficient
factual basis, whether the district court erred by failing to address Partlow’s motion for a
downward departure, and whether Partlow received ineffective assistance of counsel in
the district court. Although advised of his right to file a pro se brief, Partlow has not
done so. We affirm.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, “the [district] court must determine that there is a
factual basis for the plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); see United States v. Ketchum,
550 F.3d 363, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2008). But a factual basis is not insufficient merely
because it lacks full details of the charge, “so long as it establishes the elements of the
offense.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied
__ S. Ct. __, No. 18-6304, 2018 WL 5017623 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2018). Furthermore,
Partlow explicitly stated in sworn testimony that he agreed with the factual basis filed
* Counsel questions whether Partlow’s waiver of appellate rights in the plea
agreement precludes this appeal. But because the Government has not invoked the
appellate waiver on appeal, we are not limited by the waiver provision in conducting our
review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th
Cir. 2007).
3
with the district court and that he in fact engaged in a drug trafficking conspiracy. See
United States v. Allen, 716 F.3d 98, 103 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating elements of § 846
offense). Based on the totality of the circumstances, Partlow has not rebutted the
presumption of truthfulness accorded his “solemn declaration[s].” United States v.
Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, we conclude that the district court
did not err—plainly or otherwise—in finding that Partlow’s guilty plea was supported by
a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th Cir.
2014) (providing standard of review).
“We review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard’ . . . whether the sentence is ‘inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[Sentencing] Guideline range.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th
Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). Counsel questions
whether the district court erred in failing to address Partlow’s motion for a downward
departure. But this was not an abuse of discretion. Partlow had withdrawn the objection
that served as the basis for the motion, and the court was constrained by the statutory
mandatory minimum. Moreover, we conclude that Partlow’s sentence was otherwise
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Finally, counsel questions whether Partlow received ineffective assistance of
counsel in the district court, but counsel points to no specific error. We do not consider
ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502,
507 (4th Cir. 2016). We conclude that Partlow fails to meet this high standard.
4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Partlow, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Partlow requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Partlow.

Outcome:

Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a charge.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: