United States v. Christopher Harris

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, a/k/a Christopher Todd Harris,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:10-cr-01198-CWH-3)

Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: November 4, 2013

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Christopher Harris pleaded guilty to manufacturing and

possession with intent to distribute marijuana plants pursuant

to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Harris to 240

months of imprisonment, a variance sentence below the Guidelines

range, and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Harris argues on appeal that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to challenge his career offender status

or investigate his predicate convictions. 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). Moreover,

we 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 Harris has failed to demonstrate that ineffective

assistance of counsel conclusively appears on the record. We

therefore decline to address this argument on direct appeal.

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

2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED