UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARCUS NEAL MCMILLAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00267-JAB)
Submitted: April 16, 2007 Decided: May 7, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., MERRITT, FLEBOTTE, WILSON, WEBB & CARUSO,
PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Neal McMillan pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). The district
court sentenced him to ninety-two months in prison. McMillan
timely appealed.
McMillan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his
opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether McMillan’s trial counsel coerced McMillan into pleading
guilty and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to McMillan’s
detention and arrest and statements he made to police officers.
McMillan was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he did not file one. For the reasons stated below, we
affirm McMillan’s conviction and sentence.
We first turn to McMillan’s claim that his trial attorney
coerced him into pleading guilty. A guilty plea must be “a
voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of
action open to the defendant,” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25, 31 (1970), and may be invalid if it was induced by threats or
misrepresentations, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755
(1970). A defendant’s statements at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing are presumed to be true. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.
- 2 -
63, 73-74 (1977). Unsupported allegations on appeal are
insufficient to overcome representations at the Rule 11 hearing.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir. 1991)
(stating that defendant’s statement at Rule 11 hearing that he was
neither coerced nor threatened was “strong evidence of the
voluntariness of his plea”); Via v. Superintendent, Powhatan Corr.
Ctr., 643 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that statements at
plea hearing that facially demonstrate plea’s validity are
conclusive absent compelling reason why they should not be).
Here, McMillan indicated at the Rule 11 hearing that he
was satisfied with counsel’s services, he was pleading guilty
voluntarily, and no one attempted to force him to plead guilty
against his will. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any
evidence supporting McMillan’s bald claim that trial counsel
coerced him into pleading guilty. We therefore find that McMillan
is not entitled to relief on this claim.
Additionally, we find that the ineffective assistance of
counsel claims that McMillan seeks to raise are not cognizable on
direct appeal. To allow for adequate development of the record, a
defendant must bring such claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective
assistance of counsel. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192,
198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th
- 3 -
Cir. 1997). Here, the record does not conclusively establish that
McMillan’s trial counsel was ineffective.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm McMillan’s conviction and sentence. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform McMillan, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If McMillan
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion at
that time. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was
served on McMillan. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -