United States v. Christopher Bryant , 588 F. App'x 228 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00294-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Allen Bryant appeals his conviction and
thirty-seven-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(j) (2012). Bryant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. The Government has
declined to file a response. Bryant has filed a supplemental
and amended supplemental pro se brief, raising several
challenges to his Guidelines calculations and questioning
counsel’s effectiveness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, as well as Bryant’s pro se pleadings, and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. Before accepting
Bryant’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough
plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 and ensuring that Bryant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and
supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court complied
with all procedural requirements in sentencing Bryant. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Bryant does not
rebut our appellate presumption that his within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
2
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
To the extent Bryant seeks to raise claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to reach such
claims. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims
generally are not addressed on direct appeal. United States v.
Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Because there is no
conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the
face of the record, we conclude these claims should be raised,
if at all, in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), in order to permit adequate development of the record.
See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010).
Accordingly, we affirm Bryant’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Bryant, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Bryant requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Bryant.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4