Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ronald HELMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-23
Citations: 689 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 16-4586
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ronald HELMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 738–738

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ronald HELMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4586
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2017
Decided: May 23, 2017
Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Ronald Helms, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. Helms now appeals, asserting that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
Helms contends that his trial counsel failed to object to the insufficient indictment and erred in executing a plea agreement in which Helms pled guilty to conspiracy charges that did not identify a coconspirator. However, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised — if at all — in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion rather than on direct appeal, unless the appellate record conclusively demonstrates that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (providing standard), we decline to review this claim on direct appeal.
Accordingly, because Helms presents no issue suitable for review, we dismiss 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.
DISMISSED