US v. Albert Steve Lynch, No. 06-4697 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4697 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT STEVE LYNCH, Defendant - Appellant.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-00231) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: On August 1, 2005, Albert Steve Lynch was charged in a two count indictment with: (1) bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000) (Count One); and (2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000 and Supp. 2007) (Count Two). Lynch ultimately entered into a plea agreement with the Government, in which he indictment. the agreed to plead guilty to both counts in the In conformity with Lynch s advisory guidelines range, district court sentenced Lynch to thirty-three months imprisonment on Count One and to a consecutive seven-year sentence on Count Two. Lynch timely noted his appeal, and now argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons that follow. Ineffective cognizable on direct assistance appeal of unless conclusively appears on the record. F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. counsel 2003). claims counsel s are not ineffectiveness United States v. James, 337 In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must show that: (1) counsel s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; prejudicial. and (2) counsel s deficient performance was Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). To satisfy Strickland s second prong in the guilty plea context, a - 2 - petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 52, 59 (1985). Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. In his brief, Lynch does not allege, much less demonstrate, that but for counsel s errors he would not have pled guilty but insisted on going to trial. judgment of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the 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.
