US v. James Hovi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00024-JPB-MJA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999957071]. [16-4267]

Appeal: 16-4267

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EVERETT HOVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00024-JPB-MJA-1)

Submitted:

September 22, 2016

Decided:

October 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen
Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4267

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Everett

Hovis

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
seven months’ imprisonment.

Hovis’ attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning
counsel.

whether

Hovis

received

ineffective

assistance

of

We affirm.

Hovis

contends

that

his

counsel

rendered

ineffective

assistance during his revocation proceedings by convincing him to
admit that he violated the terms of supervised release by failing
to notify the probation officer of a change of address and to
report for drug testing, which ultimately led to the revocation of
his supervised release.
conclusively

appears

on

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness
the

face

of

the

record,

ineffective

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); see
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (providing
standard).

Instead, such claims are more properly raised in a

motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to
permit adequate development of the record.

United States v.

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

Because the

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of

2

Appeal: 16-4267

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

counsel, we conclude that Hovis’ claim should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
therefore affirm the district court’s revocation judgment.

We

This

court requires that counsel inform Hovis, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Hovis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Hovis.
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