UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMETRIUS DARRIUS RASBERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00457-TDC-1; 8:19-cv-02446-TDC)

Submitted: May 24, 2024 Decided: May 30, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Phillip 

A. Selden, First Assistant United States Attorney, Jason D. Medinger, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6002 Doc: 41 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Darrius Rasberry appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the question of 

whether Rasberry’s former attorney (“sentencing counsel”) rendered ineffective assistance 

by failing to file a notice of appeal. We now affirm the district court’s order.

We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and “any mixed questions 

of law and fact addressed by the court as to whether [Rasberry] has established a valid 

Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claim.” United States v. Ragin, 820 F.3d 609, 617 

(4th Cir. 2016). Because the district court resolved Rasberry’s claim after conducting an 

evidentiary hearing, we review its factual findings for clear error. United States v. NunezGarcia, 31 F.4th 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2022).

We discern no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Rasberry’s § 2255 

motion. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show 

that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that he was prejudiced by the 

deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 692 (1984). “[A] 

lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal 

acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 241

(2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). And if a defendant “never explicitly requests 

an appeal, [he] can still establish deficient performance by showing that counsel failed to 

consult with [him], and that a reasonable attorney would have done so under the 

circumstances.” Bostick v. Stevenson, 589 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, sentencing 

counsel consulted with Rasberry regarding his right to appeal and “advise[d him] about the 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6002 Doc: 41 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

advantages and disadvantages of an appeal.” Id. Rasberry then told sentencing counsel 

that he did not want to appeal. On these facts, we conclude that sentencing counsel did not 

render deficient performance by not noting an appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6002 Doc: 41 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3