Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Devan EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-14
Citations: 10 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 00-7758
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Devan EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Devan EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7758.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 30, 2001.
Decided May 14, 2001.
Donald Devan Edwards, pro se.
Kenneth Davis Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donald Devan Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Finding no reversible error, we dismiss.
We conclude Edwards fails to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty plea or in relation to the filing of an appeal. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Further, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit Edwards to amend his complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Finally, because Edwards' claim alleging his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not informing him of the possible sentence he faced is now raised for the first time on appeal, we decline to address that issue. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Edwards' motion for issuance of a subpoena. 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.
DISMISSED.