Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04697/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Steve Lynch
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT STEVE LYNCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00231)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4697 Doc: 54 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

On August 1, 2005, Albert Steve Lynch was charged in a

two count indictment with: (1) bank robbery in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000) (Count One); and (2) use of a firearm

during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000 and Supp. 2007) (Count Two).

Lynch ultimately entered into a plea agreement with the Government,

in which he agreed to plead guilty to both counts in the

indictment. In conformity with Lynch’s advisory guidelines range,

the district court sentenced Lynch to thirty-three months’

imprisonment on Count One and to a consecutive seven-year sentence

on Count Two. Lynch timely noted his appeal, and now argues that

he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district

court. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the

reasons that follow. 

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not

cognizable on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness

conclusively appears on the record. United States v. James, 337

F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to succeed on an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must show

that: (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness; and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was

prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).

To satisfy Strickland’s second prong in the guilty plea context, a

Appeal: 06-4697 Doc: 54 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pled guilty and

would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52, 59 (1985). In his brief, Lynch does not allege, much less

demonstrate, that but for counsel’s errors he would not have pled

guilty but insisted on going to trial. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 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: 06-4697 Doc: 54 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 3 of 3