Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozay RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-06
Citations: 697 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 16-4456
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozay RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 173–174

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozay RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4456
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2017
Decided: September 6, 2017
Richard C. Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ozay Richardson appeals the district court's amended judgment resentencing him to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). On appeal, Richardson contends that his attorney was ineffective by not challenging his six-level sentence enhancement under U.S. Sentencing_Guidelines_Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1). We affirm.
"Unless an attorney's ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal." United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). A defense attorney should be given an opportunity to address the reasons for his or her action or inaction, and the record should be more fully developed, before addressing this issue. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance on the face of this record. Therefore, Richardson's claim "should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion." Faulls, 821 F.3d at 508 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED