United States of America v. Michael Lamont Robinson, a/k/a Michael Moore, a/k/a Lil Murder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LAMONT ROBINSON, a/k/a Michael Moore, a/k/a Lil Murder,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00314-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 24, 2019
Before FLOYD and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lamont Robinson appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to possession
with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2012). Robinson contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when one
attorney failed to investigate the quantity of heroin seized upon his arrest and another
attorney failed to argue Robinson’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea. We dismiss the
appeal.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a prisoner “must show
that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In the guilty plea
context, “the defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going
to trial.” Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted). However, “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the
face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls,
821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Instead, such “claim[s] should be raised, if at all, in
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [(2012)] 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
the record in this case does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, we
decline to review Robinson’s claims on direct appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we 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 --