US v. Bryan Samuel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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