US v. Wendell Lloyd, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999706272-2]. Originating case numbers: 5:14-cr-00043-D-1,5:14-cv-00895-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999752769]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6852]

Appeal: 15-6852

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WENDELL HUSSEY LLOYD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00043-D-1; 5:14-cv-00895-D)

Submitted:

January 27, 2016

Decided:

February 10, 2016

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Wendell Hussey Lloyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6852

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Wendell

Hussey

Lloyd,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
We

granted

a

certificate

of

appealability

supplemental briefing on a single issue:
hearing
claim

was

needed

that

in

counsel’s

the

district

failure

to

a

to

follow,

we

vacate

in

part

and

resolve

notice

requested amounted to ineffective assistance.
that

ordered

whether an evidentiary

court

file

and

of

Lloyd’s

appeal

as

For the reasons

remand

for

further

proceedings.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions
underlying

its

denial

of

§ 2255

relief.

United

Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 2014).

States

v.

We review for

abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to hold an
evidentiary hearing to resolve an issue presented in a § 2255
motion.

See Gordon v. Braxton, 780 F.3d 196, 204 (4th Cir.

2015); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir.
1970).
an

A district court abuses its discretion when it commits

error

of

law.

Koon

v.

United

States,

518

U.S.

81,

100

(1996).
“Unless the motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,
the [district] court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing thereon,
determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions
2

Appeal: 15-6852

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2016

of law with respect thereto.”

Pg: 3 of 5

28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see United

States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 534, 539 (4th Cir. 2010).
prisoner

presents

a

colorable

Sixth

Amendment

When a

claim

showing

disputed facts involving inconsistencies beyond the record, a
hearing is required.

United States v. Magini, 973 F.2d 261, 264

(4th Cir. 1992); see Raines, 423 F.2d at 530.

When a § 2255

movant asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based
on

counsel’s

failure

to

note

an

appeal,

the

district

court

generally must hold an evidentiary hearing before finding that
the

movant

did

not

notice of appeal.

unequivocally

instruct

counsel

to

file

a

See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d

263, 269 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d
923, 926-27 (4th Cir. 2000).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Lloyd must
demonstrate

that

unreasonable

and

counsel’s
that

deficient performance.
687 (1984).

performance

Lloyd

was

was

prejudiced

objectively
by

counsel’s

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

Counsel is per se ineffective if he fails to file a

notice of appeal when instructed to do so.

Strong v. Johnson,

495

such

F.3d

134,

138

(4th

Cir.

2007).

In

a

case,

the

petitioner need not demonstrate prejudice to sustain his claim,
as prejudice is presumed from the forfeiture of the appellate
proceeding.

Poindexter, 492 F.3d at 268.

3

Appeal: 15-6852

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

Although advised of his obligation to provide evidence to
oppose the Government’s summary judgment motion, Lloyd did not
file an affidavit or other competent evidence to support the
more

specific

allegations

in

his

summary

judgment

pleadings.

However, Lloyd’s § 2255 motion was verified in compliance with
28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2012).

In it, he stated that he renewed his

request to counsel for an appeal after his sentencing hearing,
but counsel did not file an appeal after being asked to do so.
Viewing this sworn statement, as we must, in the light most
favorable to Lloyd, see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 380
(2007) (summary judgment standard); Poindexter, 492 F.3d at 267
(§ 2255

proceedings)

—

particularly

in

light

of

his

later

unsworn statements clarifying his factual contentions — Lloyd’s
sworn

motion

requested

is

that

not

inconsistent

counsel

file

an

with

appeal

a

finding

after

he

signed

he

that

an

acknowledgement of rights form indicating that he did not wish
to appeal.

In light of this evidence, we conclude counsel’s

affidavit to the contrary was not dispositive of Lloyd’s claim,
and the district court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of the Government.
Accordingly,
insofar

as

it

we

vacate

dismisses

the

Lloyd’s

district
claim

that

court’s
his

judgment

counsel

was

ineffective in failing to note an appeal, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
4

We deny a certificate

Appeal: 15-6852

Doc: 16

Filed: 02/10/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

of appealability as to Lloyd’s remaining claim and dismiss that
portion of the appeal.
counsel.
legal
before

We deny as moot Lloyd’s motion for

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.
DISMISSED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

5