Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04024/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell Robert Greene
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL ROBERT GREENE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00117-LHT-10)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4024 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
1

Greene does not otherwise challenge his conviction, or the

knowing and voluntary nature of his plea, nor does he challenge his

admitted responsibility for an amount of methamphetamine of more

than 35 grams but less than 50 grams, placing him at an attendant

base offense level of 30, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(c)(5) (2004). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Robert Greene appeals his conviction and sentence

of 121 months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release,

following his guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture and to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). On appeal, Greene claims that, but

for the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to

the application of enhancements to his sentence, his sentence would

have be lower.1

As Greene acknowledges, his claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel must be brought in a collateral proceeding

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), unless it conclusively appears from

the face of the record that his counsel was ineffective. United

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

Greene can make no such showing in this case. Evidence

supports the district court’s enhancements pursuant to USSG

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2004), based on Greene’s possession of a firearm

during the course of the conspiracy, and to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(6)(B),

based on his having created a substantial risk of harm to the

environment as a result of his methamphetamine manufacturing

Appeal: 08-4024 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
2

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).

- 3 -

conduct. Thus, Greene cannot prove prejudice in his attorney’s

failure to object to the enhancements,2 based on the face of the

record, such that we would entertain Greene’s claim of ineffective

assistance on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Greene’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: 08-4024 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/07/2008 Pg: 3 of 3