UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RICKY GUNTER, a/k/a Veejay Gunter,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00053-JAB-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ricky Gunter appeals from his conviction and 220-month 

sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to distribution of 

cocaine base. Gunter’s counsel filed an Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, stating that he found no meritorious 

grounds for appeal but questioning the substantive 

reasonableness of Gunter’s sentence. Gunter filed a pro se 

brief supplementing counsel’s argument and also averring that 

counsel was ineffective at sentencing. We affirm. 

Gunter first contends that his sentence was greater than 

necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. While counsel 

provides no specific argument, Gunter contends that the district 

court did not adequately consider the victimless, nonviolent, 

and low-level nature of his crime. Gunter further asserts that 

the district court did not adequately take into account the goal 

of rehabilitation and the overcrowding of prisons.

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness “under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” considering the 

“totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). If the sentence is within the properly 

calculated Guidelines range, we presume that the sentence is 

substantively reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 

583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). Because there is a range of 

permissible outcomes for any given case, an appellate court must 
3

resist the temptation to “pick and choose” among possible 

sentences and rather must “defer to the district court's 

judgment so long as it falls within the realm of these 

rationally available choices.” United States v. McComb, 519 

F.3d 1049, 1053 (10th Cir. 2007).

 Here, the district court explicitly determined that Gunter’s 

criminal behavior was serious and that his prior sentences had 

not deterred him. The court also considered his acceptance of 

responsibility and desire for rehabilitation. In addition, the 

presentence report, to which Gunter did not object, described 

repeated involvement in serious and violent offenses and failed 

attempts at rehabilitation. Gunter’s argument is essentially 

just a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the 

statutory factors. Because Gunter has failed to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness, we conclude that his sentence is 

substantively reasonable.

We decline to reach Gunter’s claim that counsel was 

ineffective. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively 

appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims 

are not generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. 

Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims 

should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the 

record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th 
4

Cir. 2010). Because the record does not conclusively establish 

ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that this claim 

should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no other potentially 

meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel 

inform Gunter, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Gunter 

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this 

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gunter. 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