US v. Ledbetter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRELL QUANTE LEDBETTER, 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-00246)
August 31, 2007
October 3, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Terrell Quante Ledbetter pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Ledbettter alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to argue at sentencing previously filed objections to his presentence
For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
establishes ineffective assistance.
United States v. James, 337
F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). development of the record, Rather, to allow for adequate of ineffective assistance
generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). that ineffective assistance of counsel is not We find
established on the record before us. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
- 2 -
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?