United States v. Shepperson

• Decision Date: 08 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 11–4618.,11–4618.
• Citation: 739 F.3d 176
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Chinua SHEPPERSON, a/k/a Nu, a/k/a NuNu, a/k/a King Nu, a/k/a Chinua Shepperdson, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

739 F.3d 176

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Chinua SHEPPERSON, a/k/a Nu, a/k/a NuNu, a/k/a King Nu, a/k/a Chinua Shepperdson, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 11–4618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 31, 2013.

Decided: Jan. 8, 2014.

ARGUED:Ray M. Shepard, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Sujit Raman, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Emily N. Glatfelter, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge AGEE wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge ANDERSON concurred.

AGEE, Circuit Judge:

Chinua Shepperson (“Shepperson”) was convicted of several crimes, including conspiracy and murder. On appeal, Shepperson contends that the district court erred by not affording him the assistance of two attorneys under the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3005. Separately, he argues that the district court also erred by not excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness based on the Government's failure to furnish him with a list of witnesses three days before commencement of trial, as is required in capital cases by 18 U.S.C. § 3432. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

On October 27, 2010, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland returned a superseding indictment charging nineteen alleged Latin King gang members—including Shepperson—with five counts: (1) conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (2) murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959; (3) interference with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; (4) discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (5) murder as a result of using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Although the indictment contained capital-eligible offenses, the Attorney General elected not to seek the death penalty.

All but one of the defendants in the case pleaded guilty; Shepperson was the lone defendant who proceeded to trial. On March 14, 2011, after approximately two weeks of trial, a jury found Shepperson guilty on all counts. He was subsequently sentenced to life plus ten years' imprisonment.

Shepperson now appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.

On appeal, Shepperson contends that the district court erred by (1) not affording him the assistance of two counsel provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3005; and (2) not excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness based on the Government's failure to furnish him under 18 U.S.C. § 3432 with a list of witnesses three days before commencement of trial. We address each issue in turn.

A.

Shepperson first contends that the district court erred in failing to advise him of his statutory right to two attorneys under 18 U.S.C. § 3005, which provides:

Whoever is indicted for treason or other capital crime shall be allowed to make his full defense by counsel; and the court before which the defendant is to be tried, or a judge thereof, shall promptly, upon the defendant's request, assign 2 such counsel, of whom at least 1 shall be learned in the law applicable to capital cases.

In United States v. Boone, 245 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.2001), we held that a defendant charged with a capital-eligible crime is entitled, under § 3005, to representation by two attorneys regardless of whether a capital sentence is actually sought.¹ As noted in Boone, however, “[t]he defendant must ... request the appointment of a second lawyer for the two-attorney requirement to apply.” 245 F.3d at 359 n. 7;see also18 U.S.C. § 3005 (“[A] judge thereof, shall promptly, upon the defendant's request, assign 2 such counsel.” (emphasis added)).

Shepperson concedes that he did not request additional counsel under § 3005 in the district court. Our review is thus for plain error. SeeFed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731–32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 383–84 (4th Cir.2001) (reviewing forfeited claim under § 3005 for plain error and affirming conviction). In order to demonstrate plain error, Shepperson must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770;United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir.1998). Even if Shepperson can satisfy these requirements, correction of the error remains within our sound discretion, which we “should not exercise ... unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); Hastings, 134 F.3d at 239.

Despite the clear statutory mandate that a defendant must request a second attorney, see18 U.S.C. § 3005, Shepperson nevertheless asserts that the district court committed error by not advising him sua sponte of his right to additional counsel, particularly because “he made the [district] court well aware that he was dissatisfied with his ... trial counsel.” (Appellant's Br. 14.) Shepperson essentially maintains that when a defendant who is charged with a death-eligible crime expresses dissatisfaction with appointed counsel, the district court is under an affirmative statutory duty to advise the defendant of his right to additional counsel under § 3005. Whether the statute contains this requirement is a question of law, which we review de novo. See United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111, 120 (4th Cir.2004).

Shepperson's argument, however, is simply unsupported by the statutory text. As discussed above, the plain language of § 3005 imposes no affirmative obligation on the district court, except its obligation to appoint a second attorney “ upon the defendant's request.” 18 U.S.C. § 3005 (emphasis added). “We decline to read into the statute a requirement that is not readily apparent.” Boone, 245 F.3d at 360;see also United States v. Hood, 343 U.S. 148, 151, 72 S.Ct. 568, 96 L.Ed. 846 (1952) (“We should not read such laws so as to put in what is not readily found there.”).

Shepperson's reliance on Smith v. United States, 353 F.2d 838 (D.C.Cir.1965), is similarly misplaced. In Smith, the defendant had stopped communicating with his attorney before trial, and the attorney moved to withdraw from the case. 353 F.2d at 844. After a hearing, the attorney's motion to withdraw was denied. Though the defendant was facing the death penalty at trial, he was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment. Id. at 846. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the district court should have advised him of his right to additional counsel under § 3005. Id. at 845–46. Although the D.C. Circuit agreed, it found no reversible error—even assuming prejudice from the district court's failure to advise—due to defense counsel's vigorous defense in a case featuring overwhelming evidence. Id.

Smith, however, has no precedential value and is contradicted by a number of this Court's previous decisions, all of which have applied § 3005' s clear mandate of a defendant's request. See, e.g., Boone, 245 F.3d at 359 n. 7 (“The defendant must ... request the appointment of a second lawyer for the two-attorney requirement to apply.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 1215, 1218 (4th Cir.1976) (“It is settled that a defendant in a capital case is entitled to the appointment of up to two counsel upon request.” (emphasis added)).

To the extent that Shepperson argues that the district court's failure to inform him of the provisions of § 3005 creates a presumption that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his defense, we do not agree. We have previously explained:

It is well established that the [S]ixth [A]mendment right to effective assistance of counsel is a fundamental constitutional right, one which may not be waived unless there is a competent and knowing waiver by the defendant. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). However, the right provided by section 3005 is purely a statutory right, not a fundamental constitutional right. Almost without exception, the requirement of a knowing and intelligent waiver has been applied “only to those rights which the Constitution guarantees to a criminal defendant in order to preserve a fair trial.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2052, 36 L.E.2d 854 (1973). It is not the function of the court to advise a defendant of every statute which might have some favorable bearing upon his case. Barkan v. United States, 305 F.2d 774, 778 (7[th] Cir.), cert. denied,371 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 261, 9 L.E.2d 173 (1962). As we have indicated, ... the right is only a statutory right and creates a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel only when a request is made.

United States v. Blankenship, 548 F.2d 1118, 1121 (4th Cir.1976). Because the right to additional counsel under § 3005 is solely statutory, we hold that the district court was not required to call it to the attention of Shepperson. We thus find no error, much less plain error.²

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court as to the issue of appointment of counsel under § 3005.

B.

Shepperson alternatively contends that the district court erred by not excluding the testimony of a cooperating witness, Roddy Paredes (“Paredes”), because the Government did not furnish Shepperson with a list of witnesses three days before commencement of trial,...