US v. Jamile Byrd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cr-00042-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999597647]. [14-4892]

Appeal: 14-4892

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMILE T. BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00042-HMH-1)

Submitted:

May 28, 2015

Decided:

June 8, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4892

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamile
sexual

T.

Byrd

appeals

exploitation

§ 2251(a) (2012).

of

a

his

conviction

child,

in

and

violation

sentence
of

18

for

U.S.C.

Byrd pled guilty and was sentenced to 360

months’ imprisonment and a life term of supervised release.

On

appeal, counsel for Byrd filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
procedural

issues

for

appeal

reasonableness

of

supplemental pro se brief.

but

seeking

Byrd’s

sentence.

review

of

Byrd

the

filed

a

The Government elected not to file a

brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, as well as Byrd’s pro se supplemental brief, and have
found no meritorious issues. Byrd’s guilty plea forecloses his
claim regarding discovery materials.

The district court made no

procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552
U.S.

38,

51

(2007),

and

Byrd

does

not

rebut

our

appellate

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable.

See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Finally, Byrd’s pro se brief alleges claims of ineffective
assistance

of

conclusively
assistance

counsel.
appears

claims

on
are

Unless
the
not

an

face

attorney’s
of

the

generally
2

ineffectiveness

record,

addressed

ineffective
on

direct

Appeal: 14-4892

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/08/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

appeal.

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir.

2008).

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

United

record.

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

States

v.

Because the

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
court

requires

that

counsel

inform

Byrd,

in

writing,

This

of

the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Byrd requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Byrd.
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

3