UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SPENCER T. MYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-00-62; CA-03-2220-3)
Submitted: September 9, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Spencer T. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia; Hunter
Paul Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Spencer T. Myers appeals from the district court’s denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion for relief from judgment.
The district court denied Myers’ § 2255 motion, which raised
several claims, but awarded a certificate of appealability on one
issue: whether the public safety exception to the warrant
requirement authorized the pre-Miranda* questioning of Myers about
the location of a firearm used in a murder. We deny relief and
affirm as to this issue, and dismiss Myers’ appeal as to all other
claims.
In an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion, we
review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions. United
States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2007). In order
to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must
show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s deficient performance
was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). Under the first prong of Strickland, there is a strong
presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689. To satisfy the
second prong, the defendant must show there is a reasonable
probability that his attorney’s errors altered the outcome of the
proceeding. Id. at 694.
*
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2
Having reviewed the record and the district court’s
decision, we conclude that Myers cannot establish that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the
seized evidence on the basis of the alleged Fifth Amendment
violation. Thus, we affirm the portion of the district court’s
order rejecting this claim for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Myers, Nos. 3:00-cr-00062; 3:03-cv-02220-3
(S.D. W. Va. Aug. 11, 2005). We deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal as to all other issues raised
in Myers’ § 2255 motion. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3