US v. Rodney Whitney


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4528 Doc: 44 Filed: 06/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4528 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY W. WHITNEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 KEENAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 24, 2015 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?