UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4953
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JACKIE LEE RATTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00012-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E.
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jackie Lee Rattler pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement,
to six counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled
substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and one
count of possession of firearms by an unlawful user of a controlled
substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (2012). The
district court sentenced Rattler to a total of 108 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Rattler argues that counsel provided
ineffective assistance by inaccurately advising him about his
sentencing exposure, failing to meet and consult with him, and
failing to timely object to the presentence report and adequately
argue Rattler’s position at sentencing.
We decline to reach Rattler’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective
assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient
development of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d
214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the record does not
conclusively establish that counsel provided ineffective
assistance to Rattler, we conclude that these claims should be
raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3