US v. Albert Steve Lynch

Filing 920080421

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT STEVE LYNCH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00231)

Submitted:

April 17, 2008

Decided:

April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: On August 1, 2005, Albert Steve Lynch was charged in a two count indictment with: (1) bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000) (Count One); and (2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000 and Supp. 2007) (Count Two). Lynch ultimately entered into a plea agreement with the Government, in which he agreed to plead guilty to both counts in the

indictment. the

In conformity with Lynch's advisory guidelines range, court sentenced Lynch to thirty-three months'

district

imprisonment on Count One and to a consecutive seven-year sentence on Count Two. Lynch timely noted his appeal, and now argues that

he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the

reasons that follow. Ineffective cognizable on direct assistance appeal of counsel counsel's claims are not

unless

ineffectiveness

conclusively appears on the record. F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. James, 337 In order to succeed on an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must show that: (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; prejudicial. and (2) counsel's deficient performance was

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).

To satisfy Strickland's second prong in the guilty plea context, a

- 2 -

petitioner

must

show

a

reasonable

probability

that,

but

for

counsel's unprofessional errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 52, 59 (1985). Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

In his brief, Lynch does not allege, much less

demonstrate, that but for counsel's errors he would not have pled guilty but insisted on going to trial. judgment of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the

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

- 3 -