US v. Sherrill Panayoton, No. 13-4155 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4155 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHERRILL MILLER PANAYOTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00057-MOC-1) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherrill Miller Panayoton pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy in to violation commit U.S.C.A. §§ 1956(h), of money 1957 18 U.S.C. laundering, (West 2000 § 371 (2006), in Supp. & sentenced to forty-one months in prison. violation 2013), and of and 18 was Panayoton s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), meritorious stating issues that, counsel s appeal, for in but view, asking there no court this are to determine whether Panayoton received ineffective assistance of counsel. despite Panayoton has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, receiving notice of her right to do Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Counsel questions constitutionally ineffective whether assistance so, and We affirm. Panayoton of the received counsel because defense counsel failed to rebut the Government s argument at sentencing that Panayoton crimes law enforcement. to did not In voluntarily the absence disclose of her conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, however, appeal. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 such S. claims Ct. are 376 not (2012). cognizable Rather, on direct [c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel are normally raised before the 2 district court via 28 U.S.C. § 2255[.] does not conclusively establish Id. that Because the record counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing, we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. Although Panayoton s claim is premature, she may, of course, reassert it in a § 2255 habeas motion. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Panayoton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Panayoton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Panayoton. 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. 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.
