United States v. Omel McLean ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4083 Doc: 33 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4083
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMEL MCLEAN, a/k/a Webb, a/k/a Webster Perry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cr-00050-RAJ-DEM-1)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States
Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, E. Rebecca Gantt, Assistant United States Attorney, Megan M. Montoya,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4083 Doc: 33 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Omel McLean pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to sex
trafficking by force, fraud and coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), and the
district court imposed a 360-month sentence. In his opening brief on appeal, McLean
challenged the procedural reasonableness of his sentence and also argued that he had
received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government moved to dismiss the portions
of McLean’s appeal challenging his sentence as barred by the appeal waiver in his plea
agreement. This Court granted the Government’s motion. The parties have now completed
briefing on the remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; however, in his reply
brief, McLean concedes that the face of the record does not conclusively establish
ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, 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
2