Filed: Jun. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMILE T. BYRD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00042-HMH-1) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 8, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMILE T. BYRD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00042-HMH-1) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 8, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4892
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMILE T. BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00042-HMH-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 8, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamile T. Byrd appeals his conviction and sentence for
sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2251(a) (2012). Byrd pled guilty and was sentenced to 360
months’ imprisonment and a life term of supervised release. On
appeal, counsel for Byrd filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but seeking review of the
procedural reasonableness of Byrd’s sentence. Byrd filed a
supplemental pro se brief. The Government elected not to file a
brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, as well as Byrd’s pro se supplemental brief, and have
found no meritorious issues. Byrd’s guilty plea forecloses his
claim regarding discovery materials. The district court made no
procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United States,
552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Byrd does not rebut our appellate
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable. See United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Finally, Byrd’s pro se brief alleges 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
2
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 the
record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Byrd, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Byrd requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Byrd.
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