US v. Rodney Whitney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00049-FDW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999608478]. [14-4528]

Appeal: 14-4528

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY W. WHITNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00049-FDW-1)

Submitted:

June 9, 2015

Before DUNCAN and
Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 24, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States
Attorney, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General,
Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ellen R.
Meltzer, Special Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4528

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney W. Whitney pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation
of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1349

(2012),

and

conspiracy

to

commit

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012).

money
He was

sentenced to two concurrent terms of 60 months’ imprisonment and
ordered

to

pay

restitution

in

the

amount

of

$2,077,488.39.

On appeal from the district court’s June 2014 amended judgment,
Whitney

argues

that

trial

counsel

rendered

ineffective

assistance in failing to object to the district court’s order of
restitution and the application of a 2-level enhancement to his
offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c)
(2011) for his aggravating role.
We

decline

assistance

of

conclusively

to

reach

counsel.
appears

Whitney’s

Unless

on

the

an

face

claims

of

attorney’s
of

the

ineffective

ineffectiveness

record,

ineffective

assistance claims generally are not addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Instead,

such

pursuant

to

sufficient

claims
28

should

U.S.C.

development

be

§ 2255
of

the

raised

in

(2012),

in

record.

a

motion

order
United

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

to

brought
permit

States

v.

Because the

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of

2

Appeal: 14-4528

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly,
judgment.
legal
before

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

amended

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3