US v. Demetrius Antonio McKoy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00051-BO-1,5:13-cv-00551-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999451894]. Mailed to: McKoy. [14-6642]

Appeal: 14-6642

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/08/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6642

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS ANTONIO MCKOY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00051-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00551-BO)

Submitted:

September 30, 2014

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

SHEDD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 8, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Demetrius Antonio McKoy, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Gordon
James, Banumathi Rangarajan, Shailika K. Shah, Thomas Gray
Walker, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6642

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/08/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Demetrius
denying

relief

on

McKoy
his

appeals

28

the

U.S.C.

district

§ 2255

court’s

(2012)

order

motion.

We

granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether
McKoy’s

trial

assistance

at

counsel,
the

plea

Curtis

High,

bargaining

rendered

stage

of

ineffective

proceedings

by

advising McKoy to go to trial because the Government could not
convict him of a drug trafficking offense.

After reviewing the

record and the parties’ informal briefs, we conclude that McKoy
failed to demonstrate prejudice from High’s alleged deficient
performance.
(2012).
relief

See

Lafler

v.

Cooper,

132

S.

Ct.

1376,

1387

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
on

the

appealability.

claim

for

which

we

granted

a

certificate

of

With regard to McKoy’s remaining claims, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss that portion of the
appeal.
legal
before

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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2