US v. Clyde Gray, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [998367041-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00326-GBL-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998417229] [10-4181]

Download PDF
US v. Clyde Gray, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 10-4181 Document: 34 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE AUSTIN GRAY, JR., a/k/a Poochie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00326-GBL-2) Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rebecca Sue Colaw, REBECCA S. COLAW, PC, Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-4181 Document: 34 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Clyde Gray appeals his conviction and 136 month sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1349. The Government has moved to We deny the dismiss, citing Gray's waiver of appellate rights. Government's motion and affirm. Gray untimely trial appeal argues should rendered on be appeal: allowed (1) to go that his apparently because failing his to forward in counsel ineffective assistance advise Gray that he could file an appeal; and (2) that trial counsel rendered the ineffective case and object assistance to two by failing to investigate separate two-level enhancements to Gray's offense level. With respect to Gray's first contention, the Government does not oppose the appeal going forward as timely. Because the time limits for noting an appeal in a criminal case are not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the Government, we have jurisdiction to consider the remaining claim. See United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) ("the nonstatutory time limits in Appellate Rule 4(b) do not affect subject-matter jurisdiction"). The Government urges the court to dismiss Gray's appeal as waived. While Gray did execute an otherwise valid appellate waiver at the time he entered his guilty plea, claims 2 Case: 10-4181 Document: 34 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 3 of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally exempt from the ambit of such waivers. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss because we do not agree that Gray has waived his right to make this ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal. That said, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). United States v. Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. exception exists when the record conclusively Id. An establishes ineffective assistance. 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). We have United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d reviewed the record and conclude that ineffective assistance of counsel is not present on its face. The claim is therefore not cognizable on direct appeal. We Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not assist the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?