US v. Christopher Bryant, No. 14-4305 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4305 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00294-JAB-1) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: December 18, 2014 Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Allen Bryant appeals his conviction and thirty-seven-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of stolen § 922(j) (2012). firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Bryant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for declined to file a response. and amended challenges supplemental to his appeal. The Government has Bryant has filed a supplemental pro Guidelines se brief, raising calculations and several questioning counsel’s effectiveness. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case, as well as Bryant’s pro se pleadings, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Before accepting Bryant’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Bryant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). with all procedural requirements in The court complied sentencing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). rebut our sentence is appellate presumption substantively that reasonable. 2 Bryant. See Bryant does not his within-Guidelines See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). To ineffective claims. the extent assistance Unless an of Bryant seeks counsel, attorney’s we to raise decline claims to ineffectiveness reach of such conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims generally are not addressed on direct appeal. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude these claims should be raised, if at all, in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit adequate development of the record. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, sentence. writing, we affirm Bryant’s conviction and This court requires that counsel inform Bryant, in of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Bryant requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bryant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4