United States v. Cecil Ray, Jr. , 642 F. App'x 280 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CECIL RAY, JR., a/k/a Esco,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00008-JPB-JES-1; 3:10-cv-00057-JPB-
JES)
Submitted: March 25, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cecil Ray, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Ray, Jr., filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
contending, in relevant part, that his attorneys were
constitutionally ineffective in advising him to reject the
Government’s second plea offer in favor of proceeding to trial,
and in advising him as to his sentence exposure if he proceeded
to trial. We granted a certificate of appealability on these
claims and remanded his case to the district court for an
evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Ray, 547 F. App’x 343
(4th Cir. 2013) (No. 13-6471). On remand, after the magistrate
judge held an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that
counsel was not ineffective in advising Ray regarding the
Government’s second plea offer or Ray’s sentencing exposure.
Ray appeals for a second time.
To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Ray must
show that: (1) counsel’s failures fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s deficient
performance was prejudicial. In Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct.
1376, 1384-85 (2012), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel applies to the plea bargaining
process, and prejudice occurs when, absent deficient advice, the
defendant would have accepted a plea that would have resulted in
a less severe conviction, sentence, or both. In Missouri v.
Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012), the Supreme Court held that
2
a component of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the plea
bargaining context is that counsel has a duty to communicate any
offers from the Government to his client. We review the
district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of
fact for clear error. United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191,
205 (4th Cir. 2010).
After reviewing the record and the transcript of the
evidentiary hearing, we find no reversible error in the district
court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3