Court Opinion

ID: 9960718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:43.448377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:48.403131
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4534      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4534

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSHUA BAILEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cr-00071-M-4)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F.
        Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4534       Doc: 28        Filed: 04/15/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joshua Bailey appeals the 250-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to

        armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d),

        and two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and

        aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal, Bailey

        argues his attorney rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to raise for the

        district court’s consideration Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

               We review de novo an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that is made on direct

        appeal but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the . . . record itself that the

        defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th

        320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). The current record does not permit such

        a finding. Accordingly, Bailey should bring this claim, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion to permit sufficient development of the record. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d

        160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020). *

               We therefore 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

               *
                 We note, however, that because Amendment 821 is now in effect and is applicable
        retroactively, Bailey can seek its benefit by moving for a sentence reduction pursuant to
        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

                                                     2