US v. Omar Crittington, No. 15-4250 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OMAR DUPRAZ CRITTINGTON, Defendant -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-00083-MOC-DCK-1) Submitted: October 9, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Omar Dupraz Crittington appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month prison term and a 12-month term of supervised release. Crittington’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. meritorious issues 738 for (1967), appeal, stating but that there questioning are whether no trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to explain adequately to Crittington the consequences of his admission to violating the terms of his supervised release. declined to file a brief. The Government Crittington was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm. We decline assistance of conclusively to reach counsel. appears on Crittington’s Unless the an face claim attorney’s of the of ineffective ineffectiveness record, ineffective assistance claims generally are not addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance by Crittington’s trial counsel, we deem this claim inappropriate States v. for resolution Baptiste, 596 F.3d on direct 214, 216 appeal. n.1 (4th See United Cir. 2010). Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found no 2 meritorious issues for appeal. court’s judgment. This We therefore affirm the district court requires that counsel inform Crittington, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Crittington 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 Crittington. 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.
