Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4017
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00069-F-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Andrew David Owens pled guilty to failure to register as a
sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250 (2012), and was
sentenced to 41 months imprisonment.
Owens
was
biased,
his
extradition
to
North
Carolina
was
because
the
state
has
not
enacted
the
Sex
Offender
We affirm.
Although Owens claims that his plea was coerced, his sworn
statements at the plea hearing clearly belie his claim.
See
Fields v. Atty Gen. of Md., 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992)
(Absent
clear
and
convincing
evidence
to
the
contrary,
As
regarding
SORNAs
See Tollett
Additionally, Owens
application
in
North
Carolina
is
to
reasonableness,
standard.
Owens
sentence,
applying
we
review
deferential
it
for
abuse-of-discretion
This
Id. at 51.
In
court
properly
calculated
the
advisory
Sentencing
appropriate
(2012)
factors,
sentence.
If
sentence,
and
considered
sufficiently
the
18
U.S.C.
explained
the
3553(a)
selected
Id. at 49-51.
there
substantive
are
no
procedural
reasonableness
of
the
errors,
we
sentence,
Id. at 51.
consider
evaluating
the
the
In the case of a
to
its
decision
respect
to
the
extent
of
to
impose
the
such
divergence
3
sentence
from
the
and
with
sentencing
range.
However, we give
appellate
court
that
[it]
has
considered
the
parties
States
v.
Diosdado-Star,
630
F.3d
359,
364
(4th
Cir.
2011).
We discern no error in Owens sentence.
reasonableness,
Guidelines
the
range,
district
court
considered
the
properly
parties
As to procedural
calculated
arguments,
Owens
allowed
for
the
factors.
sentence
it
imposed,
grounded
Further,
the
sentence
is
in
the
substantively
claims.
Unless
an
attorneys
ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffectiveassistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th
4
Cir. 2008).
Instead,
such
pursuant
to
sufficient
claims
28
should
U.S.C.
development
be
2255
of
the
raised
in
(2012),
in
record.
motion
order
to
United
brought
permit
States
v.
Because there
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED