Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05039/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
German Millon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERMAN MILLON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00341-1)

Submitted: April 23, 2008 Decided: May 2, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tolly A. Kennon, III, KENNON & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5039 Doc: 67-2 Filed: 05/02/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

German Millon appeals his conviction and seventy-month

sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute marijuana and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). On appeal, Millon states only a single

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government has

moved to dismiss Millon’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate

rights in his plea agreement.

We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. We have

reviewed Millon’s claim and conclude that it does not “conclusively

appear[]” on the record that counsel was ineffective. United

States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Millon may raise his ineffective

assistance claim in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We

therefore affirm Millon’s conviction and sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-5039 Doc: 67-2 Filed: 05/02/2008 Pg: 2 of 2