United States v. Millon ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-5039
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GERMAN MILLON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00341-1)
    Submitted:   April 23, 2008                   Decided:   May 2, 2008
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit
    Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tolly A. Kennon, III, KENNON & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    German Millon appeals his conviction and seventy-month
    sentence    imposed    after     he   pled    guilty,    pursuant      to    a   plea
    agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute    marijuana    and    cocaine,     in   violation     of    
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846 (2000).         On appeal, Millon states only a single
    claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.                 The Government has
    moved to dismiss Millon’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate
    rights in his plea agreement.
    We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss.                      We have
    reviewed Millon’s claim and conclude that it does not “conclusively
    appear[]” on the record that counsel was ineffective.                         United
    States v. Richardson, 
    195 F.3d 192
    , 198 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal
    quotation    marks    omitted).       Millon    may     raise   his    ineffective
    assistance claim in proceedings under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).                     We
    therefore affirm Millon’s conviction and sentence.                     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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-5039

Judges: Williams, Niemeyer, Traxler

Filed Date: 5/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024