US v. Jimmy William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999945704-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00073-FDW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999971944]. Mailed to: Jimmy Lee Williams at FCI Forrest City Medium. [16-4272]

Appeal: 16-4272

Doc: 33

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4272

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jimmy Lee Williamson, a/k/a J. J.
Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy C. Williamson,
a/k/a Jimmy J. Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy L. Williamson, a/k/a
Ayamawat Bidziil, a/k/a J. Edwards, a/k/a John Bruce, a/k/a
Aaron Bruce,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00073-FDW-1)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4272

Doc: 33

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the
United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and money laundering and
aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
and 2 (2012).

The district court sentenced Williams to a total of

105 months’ imprisonment. Williams appeals, raising a single claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on
the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not
generally addressed on direct appeal.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Benton,

Instead, such claims should be

raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in
order to permit sufficient 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 that counsel provided
ineffective assistance to Williams, we conclude that this claim
should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court.
deny Williams’ motion to file a pro se brief.

We

See United States

v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011).

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
2