Court Opinion

ID: 9366515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 21:00:49.093356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.758490
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4651      Doc: 33         Filed: 01/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4651

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSHUA MATTHEW HOUCHINS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00245-D-1)

        Submitted: November 30, 2022                                      Decided: January 25, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michelle A. Liguori, ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Lisa H. Miller, Deputy
        Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Rotker, Appellate Section, Criminal Division,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Michael F. Easley,
        Jr., United States Attorney, William M. Gilmore, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4651       Doc: 33          Filed: 01/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Joshua Matthew Houchins appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his

        guilty plea to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and possession of a firearm by

        a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924. On appeal, Houchins argues that trial

        counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the district court’s application

        of several sentencing enhancements. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

               We do not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel made on direct appeal

        unless the record conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States v.

        Campbell, 963 F.3d 309, 319 (4th Cir. 2020). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of

        counsel claim, Houchins must show that (1) counsel’s performance was constitutionally

        deficient and (2) the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466

        U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To satisfy the performance prong, Houchins must demonstrate “that

        counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” as evaluated

        “under prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. To satisfy the prejudice prong,

        Houchins must establish “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional

        errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.

               Our review of the record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of

        counsel. Therefore, these claims should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

        United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016); see also Massaro v. United

        States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-07 (2003) (discussing standard). We express no opinion as to

        the merits of Houchins’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4651      Doc: 33        Filed: 01/25/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3