US v. Shawn Beamon, No. 12-4795 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4795 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN KENYATTA BEAMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00026-BO-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Kenyatta Beamon pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 160 months in prison. Beamon s sole argument is that his attorney was ineffective because he asserts that counsel failed to adequately pursue sentencing issues he claims would have significantly reduced his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. In the absence of conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 376 (2012). Rather, [c]laims of normally raised before § 2255[.] establish Id. that ineffective the Because counsel assistance district the record rendered of court does counsel via not ineffective 28 are U.S.C. conclusively assistance at sentencing, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. Although Beamon s claim is premature, he may, of course, reassert it in a § 2255 habeas motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
