US v. Rathdaphone Vongdeuane

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cr-00400-HMH-9. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976636].. [16-4292]

Appeal: 16-4292

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RATHDAPHONE VONGDEUANE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00400-HMH-9)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Decided:

November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, PA, Beaufort,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4292

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rathdaphone

Vongdeuane

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin and methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(a)(l), (b)(l)(B), 846 (2012).
The district court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 60
months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

but

questioning

whether

Vongdeuane’s sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to
offer evidence in support of an objection to the application of
U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1)

(2013).

Vongdeuane filed a supplemental pro se brief which also questions
whether sentencing counsel was ineffective.

We affirm.

A defendant may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal only if it conclusively appears from the
record that counsel did not provide effective assistance.

United

States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014).

Absent

such a showing, ineffective assistance 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.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
does

not

conclusively

show

that

counsel

United States v.
Here, the record

provided

ineffective

assistance; thus, the claim is properly raised, if at all, in a
§ 2255 motion rather than on direct appeal.
2

Appeal: 16-4292

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, we

This court requires that

counsel inform Vongdeuane, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If

Vongdeuane 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 Vongdeuane.
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