United States v. Arville Sargent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4098
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ARVILLE W. SARGENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cr-00050-1)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Keleher, THE KELEHER APPELLATE LAW GROUP, Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Eumi L. Choi, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arville Sargent pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to aiding and abetting honest services mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, 2 (2012) and
attempt to evade or defeat tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201
(2012). He received a seventy-two-month sentence. Sargent
argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
related to the calculation of loss at sentencing. We affirm the
judgment.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “are
generally not cognizable on direct appeal.” United States v.
Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); see United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Instead, to allow for
adequate development of the record, a defendant must ordinarily
bring his claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. King, 119
F.3d at 295. However, we may entertain such claims on direct
appeal if “it conclusively appears from the record that defense
counsel did not provide effective representation.” United
States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). See
generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
(setting forth standard). Because none of Sargent’s alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel claims conclusively appear on
the record, we decline to address them in this appeal.
2
We therefore affirm the district court’s 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