US v. Michael Dyson, No. 10-4300 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6) Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael 262-month Cassanova sentence Dyson following appeals his conviction conviction by a jury and of distribution of cocaine base in or near a protected location. On appeal, Dyson asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain the agreements offered by the government. terms of two plea Dyson claims that, had the terms been properly explained, he would have accepted a plea agreement rather than proceeding to trial. We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively United States v. Baldovinos, 434 on the face of the record. F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Dyson must demonstrate that: (1) counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ; and (2) the Strickland v. deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that it does not conclusively demonstrate that Dyson s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we decline to consider on direct appeal the sole issue Dyson has presented for review. We therefore affirm the district court s 2 judgment. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
