US v. Stand

Filing 920070413

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KURT ALAN STAND, a/k/a Alan David Jackson, a/k/a Junior, a/k/a Ken, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-61; CA-02-597-AM)

Submitted:

March 14, 2007

Decided:

April 13, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard I. Weinglass, New York, New York, for Appellant. Ronald Leonard Walutes, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Kurt Alan Stand appeals the district court's order

denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We previously granted a certificate of appealability on whether counsel was ineffective and

two issues raised before us:

whether the district court should have considered the declaration of Lothar Ziemer when ruling on the motion.1 Having considered

the materials filed by the parties, we now vacate the district court's order insofar as it relates to the ineffective assistance claim. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on whether defense

counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance.2 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2007). See United States v. Nicholson, 475 We leave to the district court to

determine what relevance, if any, the Ziemer declaration may have to resolution of this claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

With regard to the other issues raised by Stand in his motion, we previously denied a certificate of appealability, and we now dismiss the appeal as to those issues. Although Stand raised the conflict of interest claim before the district court, the court's memorandum opinion does not address the claim. - 2 2

1

the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

- 3 -