United States v. Senita Dill , 590 F. App'x 230 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4351
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SENITA BIRT DILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00105-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Ryan Willis, Drew Nelson, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
United States Attorney, Don Gast, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Senita Birt Dill pled guilty to a false claims
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286 (2012), access
device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) (2012), and
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A
(2012), based on her fraudulent tax-filing scheme. On appeal,
she raises two claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, asserting that her attorney was ineffective by: (1)
conceding a winning argument concerning the Government’s
untimely objections to the presentence report (“PSR”); and (2)
failing to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing once the
trial court decided to consider the Government’s untimely
objections to the PSR.
We decline to reach Dill’s 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). Because there
is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel
2
on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should
be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Thus, we affirm the criminal judgment. 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
3