US v. Kenneth Ashe, No. 13-4992 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4992 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ASHE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00033-MR-DLH-2) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol A. Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Kenneth Ashe pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Ashe to eighty-seven months imprisonment. Ashe timely appealed. Ashe s sole argument on appeal is that he was denied effective assistance of attorneys moved a § 4241(a) for (2012), of because competency to seeking according to Sixth his prior none of Amendment right his three see evaluation, This, representation. violation counsel 18 U.S.C. to withdraw Ashe, resulted to counsel, from in as a he ultimately proceeded pro se at sentencing. * Except where the record conclusively establishes counsel s ineffective assistance, such claims generally are not cognizable on direct appeal. 424, 435 (4th development of Cir. the 2008). record, United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d Rather, ineffective to allow for assistance of adequate counsel claims are usually more appropriately pursued in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). * Ashe does not appeal the magistrate judge s decision to grant his request to represent himself pro se or assert that he was incompetent to make such a request. 2 On this record, we cannot conclusively say that any of Ashe s attorneys were ineffective in failing to move the court for an evaluation of Ashe s withdraw from representation. competency prior to seeking to See generally United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733, 743 (4th Cir. 2007) (opining that the duty to hold a competency hearing should not be expanded to require such a hearing any time that a defendant engages in disruptive tactics or pursues a frivolous legal strategy ). We therefore decline to consider this argument on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s criminal judgment. We deny as moot Ashe s pro se motion for bail or release pending appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
