UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4984
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAWN MANNING,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00158-MR-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 16, 2011
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank A. Abrams, LAW OFFICE OF FRANK ABRAMS, PLLC, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Laura Ferris, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Manning pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,
oxycodone, and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),
(b)(1)(D) (2006); possession of a firearm during and in relation
to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006);
and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He received a
total sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Manning
challenges his convictions and sentence on the ground that he
was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his trial
counsel was ineffective. In light of these assertions, Manning
claims the magistrate judge, and subsequently the district
court, committed plain error in accepting his plea. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Because Manning did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error,
Manning must show: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was
plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if
Manning makes this three-part showing, this Court may exercise
its discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously
2
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 736.
“Before a court may accept a guilty plea, it must
ensure that the defendant is competent to enter the plea.”
United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999). The
test for competency is “whether [the defendant] has sufficient
present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding ─ and whether he has a rational
as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against
him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). “As in any
criminal case, a competency determination is necessary only when
a court has reason to doubt the defendant’s competence.”
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n.13 (1993). Our review of
the record does not reveal a sound basis to question Manning’s
competency at the time of his plea hearing. Accordingly, we
find no error in the magistrate judge’s, and later the district
court’s, acceptance of Manning’s guilty plea as knowing and
voluntary.
Manning also claims counsel was ineffective for
failing to request a competency hearing, to further advise him
concerning the effects of pleading guilty, and to vacate the
plea. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally
not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes counsel’s “objectively unreasonable performance” and
3
resulting prejudice. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435
(4th Cir. 2008). To allow for adequate development of the
record, ineffective assistance claims should be pursued in a
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011).
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010). The record before this Court does not conclusively
establish ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore
decline to consider Manning’s ineffective assistance claims.
We therefore affirm Manning’s convictions and
sentence. 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