US v. Jimmy William
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 . Mailed to: Jimmy Lee Williams at FCI Forrest City Medium. [16-4272]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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
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)
November 17, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
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.
See United States
v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011).
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?