Court Opinion

ID: 9369572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:01:34.228779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.135099
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4399      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/07/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4399

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        SCOTT LEE MIDKIFF,

                             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-00109-1)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                       Decided: February 7, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston,
        West Virginia, for Appellant. William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, Joseph F.
        Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4399      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Scott Lee Midkiff pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of

        methamphetamine and 40 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 1 The

        district court attributed 4,459.187 kilograms of converted drug weight to Midkiff,

        calculated his advisory range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2021) at 188

        to 235 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment.

        On appeal, Midkiff argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in not providing

        him copies of the discovery produced by the Government, in misrepresenting the strength

        of the case against him, and in failing to object to the drug weight attributed to him at

        sentencing. 2

               This court typically will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel made

        on direct appeal, United States v. Maynes, 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018), “[u]nless

        an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,” United

        States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish ineffective assistance by

        trial counsel, Midkiff must satisfy the two-part test set out in Strickland v. Washington,

               1
                 Midkiff entered his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement waiving his right to
        seek appellate review of his conviction and sentence but reserving his right to appeal based
        on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This court previously granted the
        Government’s motion to dismiss Midkiff’s appeal in part and dismissed his appellate claim
        challenging the drug weight attributed to him. United States v. Midkiff, No. 22-4399
        (4th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished order).
               2
                  We decline to consider Midkiff’s argument that trial counsel also rendered
        ineffective assistance by making confusing and disparaging remarks about him at the
        sentencing hearing because this issue was raised for the first time in his reply brief.
        See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4399       Doc: 30         Filed: 02/07/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        466 U.S. 668 (1984). He “must show that counsel’s performance was [constitutionally]

        deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. After

        review, we conclude that ineffective assistance by trial counsel does not conclusively

        appear on the face of the record. Midkiff’s claims “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion.” Faulls, 821 F.3d at 508. We therefore decline to address these claims at

        this juncture.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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