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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [14-4528]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
June 9, 2015
Before DUNCAN and
June 24, 2015
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Rodney W. Whitney pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation
laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012).
sentenced to two concurrent terms of 60 months’ imprisonment and
On appeal from the district court’s June 2014 amended judgment,
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.
assistance claims generally are not addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of
Pg: 3 of 3
counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?