United States of America v. Eldrico Armstrong

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELDRICO ARMSTRONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cr-00232-MOC-SCR-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eldrico Armstrong pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to distribution
of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and
possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The
district court sentenced him as a career offender to a total of 151 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether trial
counsel was ineffective in advising Armstrong to plead guilty. Although informed of his
right to do so, Armstrong has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government
has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Armstrong “must show that
counsel’s performance was [constitutionally] deficient” and “that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
However, “[u]nless 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. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Instead, such claims “should be
raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion”, id. at 508, in order to permit sufficient
development of the record, see United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010). Because ineffectiveness of counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the
record before us we decline to address this claim on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Armstrong, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Armstrong
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Armstrong. 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 of 3 --