US v. Clyde Gray, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE AUSTIN GRAY, JR., a/k/a Poochie,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

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