US v. Demetrius McKoy, No. 14-6642 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6642 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS ANTONIO MCKOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00051-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00551-BO) Submitted: September 30, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 8, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetrius Antonio McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Banumathi Rangarajan, Shailika K. Shah, Thomas Gray Walker, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demetrius denying relief on McKoy his appeals 28 the U.S.C. district § 2255 court s (2012) order motion. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether McKoy s trial assistance at counsel, the plea Curtis High, bargaining rendered stage of ineffective proceedings by advising McKoy to go to trial because the Government could not convict him of a drug trafficking offense. After reviewing the record and the parties informal briefs, we conclude that McKoy failed to demonstrate prejudice from High s alleged deficient performance. (2012). relief See Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1387 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of on the appealability. claim for which we granted a certificate of With regard to McKoy s remaining claims, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss that portion of the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 2

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.