Court Opinion

ID: 9939368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:00:41.152758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:59.697356
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4481      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/08/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4481

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSEPH IRA PATTERSON, III, a/k/a Moe, a/k/a Killa Moe,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00218-1)

        Submitted: January 23, 2024                                       Decided: February 8, 2024

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Lucas R. White, GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP, for Appellant. William
        S. Thompson, United States Attorney, Jennifer Rada Herrald, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4481      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/08/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joseph Ira Patterson, III, appeals from his 220-month prison sentence imposed

        pursuant to his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. On

        appeal, Patterson challenges the district court’s enhancement of his sentence under U.S.

        Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(12) (maintaining a premises for the purpose of distributing

        controlled substances). He also asserts that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in

        arguing against the enhancement. We previously granted the Government’s motion to

        dismiss in part and dismissed the sentencing claim as barred by Patterson’s appellate

        waiver. We now affirm his sentence.

               Claims of ineffective assistance are cognizable on direct appeal “only where the

        record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance.” United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d

        214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, a defendant should instead raise ineffective

        assistance of counsel claims in a § 2255 motion, in order to permit sufficient development

        of the record. Id. We find that the record on appeal does not establish a conclusive claim.

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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

                                                     2