United States v. Dickson , 210 F. App'x 325 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KERRY LEIGH DICKSON, a/k/a Kerri Leigh
Dickson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00011)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tolly A. Kennon III, KENNON & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Thomas Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kerry Leigh Dickson appeals her convictions and 130-month
sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(2000), and possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(2000). On appeal, Dickson claims her counsel rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel because he: (1) did not honor her
request to plead not guilty and proceed to trial; (2) failed to
prepare a defense, interview witnesses, and subject the
Government’s case to adversarial testing; and (3) despite being on
notice of past mental and emotional problems, failed to arrange for
a psychological evaluation.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be
brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
unless it conclusively appears from the face of the record that
counsel was ineffective. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d
233, 239 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1407 (2006); United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have
reviewed the record and find that it does not conclusively
demonstrate that Dickson’s counsel was ineffective. Therefore,
Dickson’s claims are not reviewable at this stage. Accordingly, we
affirm Dickson’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -