UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6)
Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Cassanova Dyson appeals his conviction and
262-month sentence following conviction by a jury of
distribution of cocaine base in or near a protected location.
On appeal, Dyson asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to explain the terms of two plea
agreements offered by the government. Dyson claims that, had
the terms been properly explained, he would have accepted a plea
agreement rather than proceeding to trial.
We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel
was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively
on the face of the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434
F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). To establish a violation of
the Sixth Amendment due to ineffective assistance of counsel,
Dyson must demonstrate that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude
that it does not conclusively demonstrate that Dyson’s trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we
decline to consider on direct appeal the sole issue Dyson has
presented for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s
2
judgment. 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