US v. Justin Strom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999534557-2]; denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999423161-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00159-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999540502].. [14-4602]

Appeal: 14-4602

Doc: 37

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00159-JCC-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 5, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Hundley, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Marc J.
Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Inayat
Delawala,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4602

Doc: 37

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Justin

Deonta

Strom

pled

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to one count of sex trafficking of a child by force,
fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (2012).
The district court imposed a sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Strom challenges the validity of his guilty plea. 1
Finding no error on this claim, we affirm Strom’s conviction. 2
A guilty plea is valid where the defendant voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently enters the plea, “with sufficient
awareness

of

consequences.”
(1970).

the

relevant

circumstances

Brady

v.

States,

United

397

and
U.S.

likely
742,

748

Strom asserts that he did not know that conduct related

to dismissed counts could be used against him at sentencing,
rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary.

We disagree that

1

Strom has filed a motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief, along with that brief.
Because Strom is
represented by counsel who has filed a merits brief, Strom is
not entitled to file a pro se supplemental brief, and we
therefore deny his motion.
See United States v. Penniegraft,
641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion to file
pro se supplemental brief because defendant was represented by
counsel).
2

By earlier order, we deferred ruling on the Government’s
motion to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate
rights contained in Strom’s plea agreement. We cannot consider
the validity of the plea waiver without addressing Strom’s
challenge to the validity of his guilty plea, see United
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013), and
therefore we deny the motion to dismiss.

2

Appeal: 14-4602

Doc: 37

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

his claimed lack of knowledge would invalidate his plea.
guilty

plea

colloquy,

the

district

court

“must

In a

inform

the

defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of
the

charge(s)

minimum

the

the

plea

maximum

is

offered,

possible

any

penalty

mandatory

and

various

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.

see

outlines
that

which

penalty,

rights.”
1991);

to

also

the

must

requisite

R.

Crim.

information

be

establishes

Fed.

concerning

conveyed

that

the

penalties

P.

in

the

faced

the

Rule

court

by

11(b)(1)(M)

Sentencing

colloquy.

district

he

11(b).

Guidelines

Here,

advised

pleading

the

Strom

guilty

record
of

and

the

of

the

procedures that would be employed to determine his sentence.
See United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 689 (7th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly,

Strom

has

not

established

that

his

plea

was

unknowing or involuntary.
Strom further challenges the validity of his guilty plea
based

on

a

claim

that

trial

counsel

provided

ineffective

assistance in failing to advise him that conduct relevant to
counts dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement could be used
against

him

ineffective

at
at

sentencing,
sentencing

allegations in his PSR.

and

for

he

argues

failing

to

that
object

counsel
to

was

factual

To the extent that Strom intends to

raise these assertions of ineffective assistance as separate and
distinct claims,

we

decline

to
3

address

them

in

this

appeal.

Appeal: 14-4602

Doc: 37

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the
face

of

the

record,

ineffective

assistance

generally addressed on direct appeal.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

claims

are

not

United States v. Benton,

Instead, such claims should

be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record.
United

States

v.

Baptiste,

596

F.3d

2010).

214,

216

n.1

(4th

Cir.

This case warrants no exception.

Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss,
deny Strom’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, and
affirm

Strom’s

conviction.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4