United States v. Lobbins ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-5168
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARY KATHLEEN LOBBINS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
    trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-94-105)
    Submitted:   December 12, 1995              Decided:      May 10, 1996
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge,     HAMILTON,    Circuit    Judge,   and
    PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George J. Cosenza, COSENZA & UNDERWOOD, Parkersburg, West Virginia,
    for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Sharon M.
    Frazier, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Vir-
    ginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Mary Kathleen Lobbins appeals from a district court's judgment
    entered on a guilty plea, convicting and sentencing Lobbins for
    conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine. We affirm.
    Lobbins claims error only in her attorney's representation,
    which she claims was ineffectiveCviolating her Sixth Amendment
    right to the effective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the
    record and find that it does not conclusively show incompetence in
    trial counsel's performance and prejudice therefrom to Lobbins.
    Therefore, we decline to address the substance of the claims on
    direct appeal; they should be brought in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (1988)
    motion. United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 120-21 (4th Cir.
    1991), cert. denied, 
    503 U.S. 997
     (1992); United States v. Fisher,
    
    477 F.2d 300
    , 302 (4th Cir. 1973).
    There being no other issues before the court, we affirm the
    district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
    terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-5168

Filed Date: 5/10/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021