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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-4158]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 24, 2017
Before SHEDD and
January 27, 2017
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Samuel argues that the
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.
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).
record does not conclusively establish that Samuel’s counsel was
ineffective, we decline to consider Samuel’s claim on direct
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?