United States v. Savoy , 390 F. App'x 222 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4905
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER SAVOY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00272-TDS-3)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Christopher Savoy pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere with commerce
by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), and two
counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (c)(i) (2006). He was sentenced to
sixty-three months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction, a
mandatory consecutive ten-year term on the first § 924(c)
conviction and a mandatory consecutive twenty-five-year term on
the second § 924(c) conviction, for a total of 483 months’
imprisonment. Counsel for Savoy filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asks the
court to review whether counsel below was ineffective.
Specifically, he asserts that counsel was untruthful, improperly
allowed Savoy to plead guilty and be sentenced on two § 924(c)
counts, and failed to obtain a sentence reduction for Savoy.
Although informed of his right to do so, Savoy has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. James, 337
F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Richardson, 195
2
F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). To allow for adequate
development of the record, generally claims of ineffective
assistance should be brought in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295
(4th Cir. 1997). After reviewing the record, we find that it
does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance.
Therefore, Savoy’s claims of ineffective assistance are not
cognizable on direct appeal.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. This court requires that
counsel inform Savoy, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Savoy
requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Savoy.
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