UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN LEIGH SULLIVAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00302-FL-1)
Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marilyn G. Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joe Exum, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Leigh Sullivan appeals his convictions and
340-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to eleven counts
of manufacturing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2251(a) (West Supp. 2008), and one count of possession of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)
(West Supp. 2008). On appeal, Sullivan argues that counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to arrange for him to
view the images before trial. Sullivan claims that had he seen
the images, he would have pled guilty sooner and received a
shorter sentence.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. King, 119
F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate
development of the record, claims of ineffective assistance
generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion. Id. Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that it does not conclusively demonstrate that
Sullivan’s counsel was ineffective and therefore the claim is
not cognizable here. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192,
198 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3