United States v. Kissi , 302 F. App'x 199 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7138
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-4916
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID M. KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge and Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (8:05-cr-
00254; 8:05-ca-01983)
Submitted: October 31, 2008 Decided: December 9, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
In Nos. 05-7138/7205/7212, David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se.
Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee. In No. 07-4916, Donald Kaplan,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Jonathan Biran, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, David Kissi appeals from
his convictions of bankruptcy fraud, obstruction of justice, and
criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. §§ 157, 401(3), and 1503 (2006).
In No. 05-7138, Kissi appeals the district court’s detention
order entered in May 2005. In Nos. 05-7205/7212, Kissi appeals
from a district court order denying fifteen pending motions.
Our review of the record with respect to these appeals discloses
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Kissi, No. 8:05-
cr-00254 (D. Md. May 27, 2005; July 26, 2005).
Appeal 07-4916 is Kissi’s direct criminal appeal.
Kissi’s appellate counsel claims that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to seek an expert witness to testify
regarding Kissi’s mental disorders. To allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant must ordinarily bring a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West 2006 and Supp. 2008) motion unless it conclusively
appears on the face of the record that counsel provided
inadequate assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). We find that the record does not
establish ineffective representation. We have also reviewed the
claims raised by Kissi in his supplemental pro se brief and find
them to be without merit.
3
Accordingly, we affirm Kissi’s conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4