US v. Ozay Richardson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00030-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000150275].. [16-4456]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4456 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OZAY RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00030-H-1) Submitted: July 28, 2017 Decided: September 6, 2017 Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard C. Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4456 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/06/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ozay Richardson appeals the district court’s amended judgment resentencing him to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). On appeal, Richardson contends that his attorney was ineffective by not challenging his six-level sentence enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1). We affirm. “Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). A defense attorney should be given an opportunity to address the reasons for his or her action or inaction, and the record should be more fully developed, before addressing this issue. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance on the face of this record. Therefore, Richardson’s claim “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Faulls, 821 F.3d at 508 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?