US v. Albert Steve Lynch
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
April 17, 2008
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
In conformity with Lynch's advisory guidelines range, court sentenced Lynch to thirty-three months'
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
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 -
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?