Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius Antonio McKOY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-08
Citations: 584 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 14-6642
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius Antonio McKOY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius Antonio McKOY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6642.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 8, 2014.
Demetrius Antonio McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Banuma-thi Rangarajan, Shailika K. Shah, Thomas Gray Walker, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius McKoy appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether McKoy's trial counsel, Curtis High, rendered ineffective assistance at the plea bargaining stage of proceedings by advising McKoy to go to trial because the Government could not convict him of a drug trafficking offense. After reviewing the record and the parties' informal briefs, we conclude that McKoy failed to demonstrate prejudice from High's alleged deficient performance. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1387, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of relief on the claim for which we granted a certificate of appealability. With regard to McKoy's remaining claims, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss that portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.