UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD GEREL BLUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00097-LHT-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Gerel Blue, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Gerel Blue pleaded guilty to possession of
ammunition after having been convicted of a crime punishable by
more than a year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
The district court sentenced Blue to twenty-seven months of
imprisonment. On direct appeal, Blue has chosen to proceed pro
se. Construing his claims liberally, Blue asserts that his
counsel rendered ineffective assistance, that the district court
erred in denying his request for new counsel, and that he was
denied a fair trial because he did not have an opportunity to
review all the Government’s evidence. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Blue first claims that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to communicate with him about his case. To prove a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and
(2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). With
respect to the first prong, “the defendant must show that
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny
of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at
689. Under the second prong of the test in the context of a
conviction following a guilty plea, a defendant can show
2
prejudice only by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474
U.S. 52, 59 (1985).
This court may address a claim of ineffective
assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the record. United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Blue has failed
to demonstrate that ineffective assistance conclusively appears
on the record and, therefore, we decline to address this claim.
Blue next argues that the district court denied him a
fair trial when it refused to appoint new counsel to represent
him. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, however, and there
is no evidence to suggest that Blue requested the appointment of
substitute counsel in the district court. Therefore, this claim
is without merit.
Finally, Blue argues that he was denied a fair trial
when he was not given access to a piece of evidence regarding
the traffic stop allegedly maintained by the Government. We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that this claim
is also without merit. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,
267 (1973) (when defendant pleads guilty voluntarily, he waives
3
challenges to deprivations of constitutional rights occurring
prior to guilty plea).
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4