US v. Dickson, No. 06-4465 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4465 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KERRY LEIGH DICKSON, a/k/a Kerri Leigh Dickson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00011) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tolly A. Kennon III, KENNON & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kerry Leigh Dickson appeals her convictions and 130-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(2000), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(2000). On appeal, Dickson claims her counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he: (1) did not honor her request to plead not guilty and proceed to trial; (2) failed to prepare a defense, interview witnesses, and subject the Government s case to adversarial testing; and (3) despite being on notice of past mental and emotional problems, failed to arrange for a psychological evaluation. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), unless it conclusively appears from the face of the record that counsel was ineffective. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1407 (2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). reviewed the record and find that it does not demonstrate that Dickson s counsel was ineffective. We have conclusively Therefore, Dickson s claims are not reviewable at this stage. Accordingly, we affirm Dickson s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately - 2 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
