US v. Robert Keller, No. 08-4726 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT BLAKE KELLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00043-LHT-DLH-1; 1:08-cv-294-LHT) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert Blake Keller pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Keller to 120 months of imprisonment, and Keller appeals his conviction and sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. Keller argues that (1) the district court erred in enhancing his sentence was sentence for unreasonable, possession and (3) of he a weapon, received (2) his ineffective assistance when his attorney failed to argue objections to the presentence report. appeal is The Government has asserted that Keller s foreclosed by the appellate waiver in the plea agreement, in which Keller agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we find Keller s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing and voluntary, see United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005), we find that Keller waived his right to appeal, except for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, we conclude that Keller s claim that his counsel was ineffective is not cognizable on direct appeal because counsel s ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). 2 We oral therefore argument adequately affirm because presented in the the the facts judgment. and materials We legal before dispense contentions the court with are 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.
