UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN AVERY HUGHES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-mfu-35)
Submitted: September 21, 2010 Decided: November 4, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Martin Avery Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Avery Hughes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motions to dismiss the indictment and
to suppress evidence, filed after the court sentenced Hughes to
262 months of imprisonment following his guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on
Hughes’ waiver of his appellate rights in his plea agreement.
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Hughes knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Moreover, with the
exception of Hughes’ claim that his attorney rendered
ineffective assistance, the issues Hughes seeks to appeal fall
squarely within the terms of the appellate waiver to which he
agreed. With respect to Hughes’ claim that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance, we conclude that ineffective
assistance does not conclusively appear on the record and,
therefore, decline to consider this claim on direct review. See
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the
appeal in part, affirm Hughes’ conviction, and deny Hughes’
motion for transcripts at government expense. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3