US v. Cecil Ray, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00008-JPB-JES-1,3:10-cv-00057-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999785717]. Mailed to: Cecil Ray. [15-7465]

Appeal: 15-7465

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CECIL RAY, JR., a/k/a Esco,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge.
(3:06-cr-00008-JPB-JES-1; 3:10-cv-00057-JPBJES)

Submitted:

March 25, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cecil Ray, Jr.,
Assistant United
for Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Thomas Camilletti,
States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7465

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cecil Ray, Jr., filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
contending,

in

constitutionally

relevant

part,

that

in

advising

ineffective

his

attorneys

him

to

were

reject

the

Government’s second plea offer in favor of proceeding to trial,
and in advising him as to his sentence exposure if he proceeded
to trial.

We granted a certificate of appealability on these

claims

remanded

and

evidentiary hearing.

his

case

to

the

district

court

for

an

See United States v. Ray, 547 F. App’x 343

(4th Cir. 2013) (No. 13-6471).

On remand, after the magistrate

judge held an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that
counsel

was

not

Government’s

ineffective

second

plea

in

offer

advising

or

Ray’s

Ray

regarding

sentencing

the

exposure.

Ray appeals for a second time.
To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Ray must
show

that:

standard

(1)

of

counsel’s

failures

reasonableness,

performance was prejudicial.
1376,

1384-85

Amendment

(2012),

right

to

the

and

(2)

below

an

counsel’s

objective
deficient

In Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct.

Supreme

counsel

fell

Court

applies

to

held
the

that
plea

the

Sixth

bargaining

process, and prejudice occurs when, absent deficient advice, the
defendant would have accepted a plea that would have resulted in
a less severe conviction, sentence, or both.

In Missouri v.

Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012), the Supreme Court held that
2

Appeal: 15-7465

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

a component of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the plea
bargaining context is that counsel has a duty to communicate any
offers

from

the

Government

to

his

client.

We

review

the

district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of
fact for clear error.

United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191,

205 (4th Cir. 2010).
After

reviewing

the

record

and

the

transcript

of

the

evidentiary hearing, we find no reversible error in the district
court’s denial of relief.
of the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

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