US v. Bryan Samuel


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000011629]. [16-4158]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4158 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRYAN CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1) Submitted: January 24, 2017 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, January 27, 2017 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, G. Zachary Terwilliger, Assistant United States Attorney, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, SungHee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John P. Taddei, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4158 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bryan Christopher Samuel appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. district court erred in denying Samuel argues that the his motion for specific performance of a plea offer made by the Government early in the proceedings; Samuel’s specific performance request was based on a claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea negotiations. “Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised on direct appeal only where the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. Otherwise, the proper avenue for such claims is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed with the district court.” United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Because the record does not conclusively establish that Samuel’s counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider Samuel’s claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?