UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4687
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLIE VAYSHONE GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00163-FDW-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Vayshone Green appeals the district court’s
order revoking his term of supervised release, imposing a
sentence of two and one-half months of incarceration to be
followed by sixty-nine months of supervised release, and
imposing a special condition of supervised release that Green
have no contact with his mother unless approved by the probation
officer. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion, and affirm.
On appeal, Green first argues that the district court
abused its discretion in concluding that he violated the
conditions of his supervised release. At the revocation
hearing, counsel stated that Green admitted the violation.
Although Green stated that he understood the requirement that he
report to a residential reentry center was optional, our review
of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding otherwise.
Green also argues that the district court erred in
imposing the special condition of supervised release without
providing advance notice of its intent to do so, and that it
abused its discretion in imposing the condition. Green did not
object to the lack of prior notice by the district court, and
thus his assertion of error is reviewed under the plain error
standard. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano,
2
507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). We conclude that the district
court did not err, as there is no explicit requirement for
advance notice of a special condition of supervised release.
Green next asserts that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing the special condition that he have no
contact with his mother without prior approval by the probation
officer. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court complied with the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d) (2006), and otherwise did not abuse its discretion in
imposing this condition.
Green’s final argument is that counsel was ineffective
in failing to object to the imposition of the special condition
of supervised release. Claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to
allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must
bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See id.;
United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An
exception exists when the record conclusively establishes
ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. Our review of
the record reveals that it does not conclusively show that
counsel was ineffective. We therefore decline to consider this
argument on appeal.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
4