US v. Matthew Savoy, No. 09-4905 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER SAVOY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00272-TDS-3) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Christopher Savoy pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), and two counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (c)(i) (2006). U.S.C. §§ 2, He was sentenced to sixty-three months imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction, a mandatory consecutive ten-year term on the first § 924(c) conviction and a mandatory consecutive twenty-five-year term on the second § 924(c) imprisonment. conviction, Counsel for for Savoy a total filed a of brief 483 months pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asks the court to review whether counsel below was ineffective. Specifically, he asserts that counsel was untruthful, improperly allowed Savoy to plead guilty and be sentenced on two § 924(c) counts, and failed to obtain a sentence reduction for Savoy. Although informed of his right to do so, Savoy has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 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 2 F.3d 192, 198 development assistance of (4th the should (4th Cir. 1997). does not Therefore, 1999). record, be Supp. 2010) motion. Cir. brought To generally in a allow claims 28 for of U.S.C.A. § adequate ineffective 2255 (West United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 After reviewing the record, we find that it conclusively Savoy s establish claims of ineffective ineffective assistance. assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with meritorious judgment of the issues the requirements for appeal. district court. of Anders, and Accordingly, This we court we find affirm requires no the that counsel inform Savoy, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Savoy requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Savoy. 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 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.
