US v. Ledbetter, No. 06-4899 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4899 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRELL QUANTE LEDBETTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00246) Submitted: August 31, 2007 Decided: October 3, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrell Quante Ledbetter pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Ledbettter alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to argue at sentencing report. previously filed objections to his presentence For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal, unless establishes ineffective assistance. the record conclusively United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). development of the record, Rather, to allow for adequate claims of ineffective assistance generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). that ineffective assistance of counsel is not We find conclusively established on the record before us. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -

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.