-1- NO T F OR

F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0366n.06 F iled: May 29, 2007 NO. 06-5138 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA,

P laintif f-App ellee,
v. ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT WILLIAM F . STAMP ER, COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DI STR IC T OF TEN NE SSEE Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________ _____________________/ BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , C LA Y a nd SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER C U RIAM. Def

endant- Appellant Willi am F. Stamper (“Stamper ”) a

ppeals fr om the jud g me nt of c on vic tio n a nd se nte nc e e nte re d purs ua nt to his ple a of guil ty

to be inga

fe lon in possession of a fir ear

m in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g ), on the ba sis of ine ff ec t i ve assistanc e of
c ouns e l. We AF F I RM. I. On J anuar

y 8, 2002, the Chattanoog a Po l i ce Depa rtment obtained a

sear ch wa

rra nt for Stamper’s re sidence on the basis of i nformation provided by a confidential informant. I n executing the wa rr ant, of fi c e rs se ize d v a ri ou s n a rc oti c s, para ph erna lia, and a sto le n 9 mm B e re tta

pis tol

. Stamper’s trial c ounsel filed a motion to s uppress the e vidence seized in the sear ch. In Dec ember ofTh e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t th e Go ve rn me nt d id n ot c on te st St a mpe r’ s v e rs ion of fa c ts 1 as asse rted in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mot ion to vacate , set aside, or corr ect his sentenc e, and there fore acc epted a s true Stamper’ s alleg ations that his counsel failed to f ile an appe al contra

ry to h is e xpre ss w ish e s. Stampe r f or ma lly ra ise s tw o is su e s f

or our r e vie w, the se c on d o f w hic h is wh e the r h is 2 sentenc e wa s excessive and unre asonable under the circ umstances. How ever , Stamper’s dis c us sio n a s to the re a so na ble ne ss o f h is s e nte nc e state s o nly that he “ a do pts the a rgume nts ” made with re g ard to the f irst issue, ineffe ctive assistanc e of tria l counsel.

-2- 2002, Stamper plea ded g uilty to being a felon in possession of a firea rm, and was therea fter se ntence d to 211 months i mprisonment. Stamper reque sted that his attorney file a direc t appea l, but no notice of appe al was f

iled. I n Oc tober of 2003, Stamper filed a 28 U .S.C. § 2255 m otion to vacate, se t 1

a sid e , or c or

re c t his se nte nc e , a lle g ing va ri ou s g ro un ds fo r de nia l of e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, including that his counsel ref used to file a dir ect a

ppeal. The district court g rante d Stamper an out-of

time appea l, and dismissed St amper ’s re maining ine ffe ctive assistanc e cla ims without prejudice

. II. Stamper pre sents one issue on appe al, ineff ective a ssistance of c ou nsel. He a sserts five 2

rea sons for inef

fec tive assistance , namely that his counsel fa iled to: (1) file a notice of ap p eal; (2) argue in the motion to suppress that the Gover nment conducte d Four

th Amendm en t-violative
surv e ill anc e on

Sta m p e r t o o bta in i nf

or ma tio n c or

ro bo ratin g the c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt u se d to ob ta in the war rant; (3) challeng e the c onfidential informa nt’s reliability in the m otion to suppress; and ( 4) inv e sti g a te the fa c ts o f t

he case for purp os e s o f c ha lle ng ingthe wa rr a nt i n th e mot ion

to s up pr e ss. Additionally , Stamper alleg es that his sentenc e wa s (5) e x cessive a nd unrea sonable unde r the circ umstances due to his counsel’s ineff ective a ssistance. We first note that Stamper’s objection to his counsel’s fa ilure to file a notice of appe al is now
moo t g ive n th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt of his § 22 55 mot ion pe rm itt ing him to fi le a n o ut- of -t ime a pp e a l.-3-

Wit h regard to his remaining ineffe ctive of a ssistance c laims, this C ourt has held that inef fec tive assistance of counsel claims are g ener ally not he ard on direc t review , se e Un ite d S tat es v . S ha ba zz , 263 F.3d 603, 612 (6th Cir. 2001) , and are usually hear d only on habea s petitions unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Long , 19 0 F .3 d 4 71 , 4 78 (6 th C ir . 1 99 9) , b e c a us e the re c or d b e fo re us wi ll be insuffic ient to enable us to e ntertain the claim, as a succe ssful claim necessar ily require s a showing of pre judice. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . A gu wa , 1 23 F .3d 41 8, 42 3 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 7) . T he re c or d in thi s appea l is in a d e qu a te to a s s e s s th e me r it s o f St a mp e r ' s in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e c la im s , a n d w e thus decline to a ddress them so that the pa rt i es may develop a

n adequate re cord. See U nited States v. Jack son , 181 F.3d 740, 747 ( 6th Cir.1999). III . F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.