United States v. Ryan Thurlow ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4366
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RYAN DEAN THURLOW,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-4367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RYAN DEAN THURLOW,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-4372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RYAN DEAN THURLOW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00048-TDS-1; 1:11-cr-00222-TDS-1;
1:11-cr-00223-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2013 Decided: March 21, 2013
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Dean Thurlow appeals his conviction and sentence
following his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement
to two counts of carrying and using by brandishing a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). Thurlow contends that he was
denied the effective assistance of counsel when his counsel
advised him to plead guilty. We affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal unless the record clearly
demonstrates ineffectiveness. United States v. Baldovinos, 434
F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. King,
119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is well settled that a
claim of ineffective assistance should be raised in a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion in the district court rather than on direct
appeal, unless the record conclusively shows ineffective
assistance.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). After review
of the record, we conclude that Thurlow has not conclusively
shown that his counsel was ineffective.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
In light of this decision, Thurlow’s challenge to the
imposition of two supervised release revocation sentences also
fails.
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4