USCA4 Appeal: 21-4665 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY SCOTT HUFFMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00300-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Brian M. Aus, BRIAN AUS ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4665 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Scott Huffman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). The district court
sentenced Huffman to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Huffman’s attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Huffman has not done so. We affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance generally are not cognizable on direct appeal.
United States v. Maynes, 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018). To allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant must bring his ineffective assistance claims, if at
all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 &
n.4 (4th Cir. 2006). An exception exists, however, if “an attorney’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507
(4th Cir. 2016). Because no conclusive evidence of counsel’s ineffectiveness appears on
the face of the record before us, we conclude that the “claim should be raised, if at all, in
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. at 508. We therefore decline to address Huffman’s claim.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Huffman, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Huffman requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4665 Doc: 28 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Huffman. 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