UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4660
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW DONTE YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00080-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Donte Young appeals his sentence for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012). He argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by portraying Young in the sentencing memorandum and
request for downward departure as a victim of the system when this
same system was about to sentence him. We affirm.
“[A] defendant may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if and only if it
conclusively appears from the record that counsel did not provide
effective assistance.” United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238,
241 (4th Cir. 2014) (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation
marks omitted). Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance
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 here does not conclusively
establish Young’s claim, Young does not meet this demanding
standard. This claim should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255
motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3