United States v. Dionysis Williams , 597 F. App'x 164 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DIONYSIS WILLIAMS, a/k/a DD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00015-FL-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: March 13, 2015
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal grand jury indicted Dionysis Williams on
seven counts: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute 280 grams or more of crack, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2012) (Count One); distribution of a quantity of
crack on five occasions in 2010 and 2012, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012) (Counts Two, Three, Five, Six, and
Seven); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012) (Count Four).
Without a plea agreement, Williams pled guilty to all seven
counts. The district court sentenced Williams to concurrent
165-month terms on the drug counts and a concurrent 120 months
on the firearm count. Williams timely appeals. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Williams first seeks to challenge the drug quantity
attributed to him for sentencing purposes. Generally,
unpreserved sentencing errors are reviewed for plain error. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
731–32 (1993). However, a defendant may waive appellate review
of a sentencing issue if he raises and then knowingly withdraws
an objection to the issue before the district court. See United
States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008)
(finding that defendant’s withdrawal of objection to upward
departure precluded appellate review of departure); United
2
States v. Rodriguez, 311 F.3d 435, 437 (1st Cir. 2002) (“A party
who identifies an issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has
waived the issue.”).
An appellant is precluded from challenging a waived
issue on appeal. Id. Such a waiver is distinguishable “from a
situation in which a party fails to make a timely assertion of a
right — what courts typically call a ‘forfeiture,’” id. (quoting
Olano, 507 U.S. at 733), which, as noted above, may be reviewed
on appeal for plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. at 733–34. In this
case, the parties stipulated at sentencing to the drug quantity,
and Williams specifically waived his objections to the drug
weight calculations. Williams has therefore waived appellate
review of the drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing
purposes.
Next, Williams argues that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel at sentencing. We decline to reach
Williams’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Unless
an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face
of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not generally
addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised
in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in
order to permit sufficient development of the record. United
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
3
Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective
assistance of counsel on the face of this record, we conclude
that these claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255
motion.
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ sentence. 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
4