Court Opinion

ID: 9949417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 17:01:13.373869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:50.771726
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4303      Doc: 97         Filed: 03/08/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4303

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        AURELIUS EDMONDS, a/k/a Bunkie,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00225-1)

        Submitted: February 8, 2024                                       Decided: March 8, 2024

        Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elizabeth N. Gaba, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. William S. Thompson,
        United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4303      Doc: 97           Filed: 03/08/2024   Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Aurelius Edmonds appeals his conviction and the 300-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute

        500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        § 846. On the Government’s motion, we previously dismissed Edmonds’ appeal in part

        pursuant to the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement but declined to dismiss the

        appeal as to Edmonds’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.           Following the

        completion of briefing on those claims, we affirm.

               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). Because such claims generally are not

        cognizable on direct appeal, they should normally be raised in a motion brought pursuant

        to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to permit sufficient development of the record. United States v. Kemp,

        88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023).

               To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant must show

        that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced

        the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To establish deficient

        performance, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an

        objective standard of reasonableness,” id. at 688, and overcome “a strong presumption that

        counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” id. at

        689. To establish prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4303      Doc: 97         Filed: 03/08/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

        different.” United States v. Allmendinger, 894 F.3d 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               The current record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective

        assistance before the district court. Edmonds’ claims thus “should be raised, if at all, in a

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Kemp, 88 F.4th at 546 (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Accordingly, to the extent we have not already dismissed Edmonds’ appeal, we affirm the

        criminal judgment.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3