US v. Senita Dill, No. 14-4351 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SENITA BIRT DILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00105-MR-DLH-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Ryan Willis, Drew Nelson, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Don Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Senita conspiracy, Birt in Dill violation pled of guilty 18 U.S.C. to a § 286 false claims (2012), access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) (2012), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2012), based on her fraudulent tax-filing scheme. she raises two claims of ineffective On appeal, assistance of trial counsel, asserting that her attorney was ineffective by: (1) conceding a winning argument concerning the Government’s untimely objections to the presentence report (“PSR”); and (2) failing to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing once the trial court decided to consider the Government’s untimely objections to the PSR. We assistance decline of conclusively to counsel. appears on reach Dill’s Unless the an face claims attorney’s of the of ineffective ineffectiveness record, ineffective assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such pursuant to sufficient claims 28 should U.S.C. development be raised § 2255 (2012), of the record. in in a motion order United Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). to brought permit States v. Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel 2 on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. Thus, we affirm the criminal judgment. 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.
