Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Thomas appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Thomas' attorney submitted an Anders brief identifying three potential issues but asserting there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Thomas' conviction and sentence, finding that his guilty plea precluded challenging pre-plea errors, the drug quantity used for sentencing was supported by Thomas' admissions, and his double jeopardy claim regarding seized cash was meritless. The court conducted an independent review and found no reversible errors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    George Thomas appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Thomas' attorney submitted an Anders brief identifying three potential issues but asserting there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Thomas' conviction and sentence, finding that his guilty plea precluded challenging pre-plea errors, the drug quantity used for sentencing was supported by Thomas' admissions, and his double jeopardy claim regarding seized cash was meritless. The court conducted an independent review and found no reversible errors.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-4356

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    George Thomas appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Thomas' attorney submitted an Anders brief identifying three potential issues but asserting there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Thomas' conviction and sentence, finding that his guilty plea precluded challenging pre-plea errors, the drug quantity used for sentencing was supported by Thomas' admissions, and his double jeopardy claim regarding seized cash was meritless. The court conducted an independent review and found no reversible errors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Thomas appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Thomas' attorney submitted an Anders brief identifying three potential issues but asserting there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Thomas' conviction and sentence, finding that his guilty plea precluded challenging pre-plea errors, the drug quantity used for sentencing was supported by Thomas' admissions, and his double jeopardy claim regarding seized cash was meritless. The court conducted an independent review and found no reversible errors.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 96-4356

    GEORGE BLAKELY THOMAS,


    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-95-6-V)
    Submitted: July 24, 1997
    Decided: August 4, 1997
    Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    McArthur D. Mitchell, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
    T. Calloway, United States Attorney, H. Thomas Church, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    George Blakely Thomas appeals from his conviction and sentence
    for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of
    cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 841, 846
    (West 1981 & Supp. 1997). Thomas' attorney has filed a brief in
    accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing three issues, but contending that there are no meritorious issues
    for appeal. Thomas was notified of his right to file an additional brief,
    but has not done so. We affirm.
    Thomas contends that his conviction is invalid because an investigator with the Catawba County Sheriff's Department told him that if
    he cooperated with law enforcement, he would not be indicted for
    past or future drug activity. However, Thomas entered a voluntary
    guilty plea and therefore may not attack antecedent non-jurisdictional
    errors. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Next,
    Thomas argues that narcotic buys and sales after October 21, 1994,
    should not be included in the amount of drugs attributed to him for
    sentencing purposes because after that date he cooperated with the
    authorities and made controlled narcotic buys. However, during his
    sentencing hearing, Thomas admitted to purchasing crack cocaine
    after October 1994 without the knowledge of law enforcement officials. Moreover, Thomas stipulated in his plea agreement that 1.5
    kilograms of crack was known to or reasonably foreseeable by him
    and the district court used this quantity in calculating Thomas' sentence. Finally, Thomas claims that his conviction violates the prohibition against double jeopardy because at the time he was arrested, the
    police seized $1,808 from him. This claim is meritless. Cf. United
    States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, #6D 6D6D#, 64 U.S.L.W. 4565, 4572 (U.S.
    June 24, 1996) (No. 95-345) (civil in rem forfeiture following conviction does not constitute double jeopardy).
    In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
    this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client,
    in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
    States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
    2

    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
    the client. 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
    3

    You might also like