US v. Ingram Cox, No. 20-4044 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-4044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. INGRAM COX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00006-RBS-LRL-3) Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melissa J. Warner, LAW OFFICE OF MELISSA J. WARNER, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Daniel T. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Andrew Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ingram Cox appeals his conviction and 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to manufacture and distribute heroin. On appeal, Cox contends that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that he could be held responsible for his coconspirators’ reasonably foreseeable acts. However, “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we discern no such evidence “on the face of this record, we conclude that [Cox’s] claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.