United States v. Bryan Samuel , 674 F. App'x 322 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1)
Submitted: January 24, 2017 Decided: January 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, G. Zachary Terwilliger, Assistant United States
Attorney, Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-
Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John P. Taddei,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Christopher Samuel appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Samuel argues that the
district court erred in denying his motion for specific
performance of a plea offer made by the Government early in the
proceedings; Samuel’s specific performance request was based on
a claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
during plea negotiations. “Claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel may be raised on direct appeal only where the record
conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. Otherwise, the
proper avenue for such claims is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed
with the district court.” United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d
214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Because the
record does not conclusively establish that Samuel’s counsel was
ineffective, we decline to consider Samuel’s claim on direct
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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