US v. Christopher Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00294-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999495841].. [14-4305]

Appeal: 14-4305

Doc: 31

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00294-JAB-1)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided: December 18, 2014

Judges,

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4305

Doc: 31

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

Allen

Bryant

appeals

his

conviction

and

thirty-seven-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession

of

stolen

§ 922(j) (2012).

firearms,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

Bryant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are

no

meritorious

issues

for

declined to file a response.
and

amended

challenges

supplemental

to

his

appeal.

The

Government

has

Bryant has filed a supplemental
pro

Guidelines

se

brief,

raising

calculations

and

several

questioning

counsel’s effectiveness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, as well as Bryant’s pro se pleadings, and have
found

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal.

Before

accepting

Bryant’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough
plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 and ensuring that Bryant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and
supported by an independent factual basis.

See United States v.

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
with

all

procedural

requirements

in

The court complied

sentencing

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
rebut

our

sentence

is

appellate

presumption

substantively

that

reasonable.

2

Bryant.

See

Bryant does not

his

within-Guidelines

See

United

States

v.

Appeal: 14-4305

Doc: 31

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
To
ineffective
claims.

the

extent

assistance
Unless

an

of

Bryant

seeks

counsel,

attorney’s

we

to

raise

decline

claims

to

ineffectiveness

reach

of
such

conclusively

appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims
generally are not addressed on direct appeal.
Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v.

Because there is no

conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the
face of the record, we conclude these claims should be raised,
if at all, in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), in order to permit adequate development of the record.
See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010).
Accordingly,
sentence.
writing,

we

affirm

Bryant’s

conviction

and

This court requires that counsel inform Bryant, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Bryant requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Bryant.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately
3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-4305

before

Doc: 31

this

court

Filed: 12/18/2014

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4