United States of America v. Dev Vontrai Bland, a/k/a Devon Trai Bland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4339
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEV VONTRAI BLAND, a/k/a Devon Trai Bland,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00082-D-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Sarah M. Powell, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley,
Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dev Vontrai Bland appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to distributing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On
appeal, Bland argues that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
press various objections to the calculation of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,
including to the application of the career offender enhancement, U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2018); the scoring of one of Bland’s prior convictions; the
drug quantity calculation; and the application of a firearm enhancement.
We review de novo an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that is made on direct
appeal but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial record itself that the
defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th
320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because such claims are generally not
cognizable on direct appeal, they should normally be raised in a motion brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to permit sufficient development of the record. United States v.
Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Bland’s claims are not cognizable on
direct appeal. It does not conclusively appear from the current record that sentencing
counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to object to the application of the career
offender enhancement. Moreover, because the other objections that Bland argues counsel
should have pursued would not have affected his Guidelines range unless the career
offender enhancement was not properly applied, he has not established a reasonable

-- 2 of 3 --

3
probability that the district court would have imposed a different sentence if counsel had
pressed those objections.
We therefore grant Bland’s motion to take judicial notice of public records and
dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --