United States v. Hoke, 081511 FED4, 11-4116

Docket Nº:11-4116
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHEKETA HOKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:R. Deke Falls, BARNETT & FALLS, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 15, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHEKETA HOKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-4116

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

August 15, 2011

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: July 28, 2011

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00224-RJC-1)

R. Deke Falls, BARNETT & FALLS, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sheketa Hoke pled guilty without a written plea agreement to: conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d), 2 (2006); conspiracy to use and possess a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(o); and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2006). Hoke was sentenced to 144 months in prison. She now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Hoke was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

I

Hoke first contends that her guilty plea to the firearm offenses was invalid because she neither used nor possessed a firearm. This claim is at odds with her statements at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that she understood the offenses with which she was charged and that she was guilty of those offenses. Additionally, at the hearing, Hoke represented to the court that her plea was not the result of threats or intimidation, and that no one had forced her to plead guilty or promised her a lenient sentence in exchange for her plea. At Hoke's sentencing, the parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the "truth of sworn statements made during a Rule 11 colloquy is conclusively established." United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221-22 (4th...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP