United States of America v. Sylvester Cruse, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4459
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SYLVESTER CRUSE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00146-FDW-3)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William D. Auman, AUMAN LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Cruse, Jr., appeals his conviction for conspiracy
to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(2012); conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012);
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or
a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2012); conspiracy to use or carry a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(o) (2012); and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). He argues
that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to
argue outrageous government conduct and failing to assert an
entrapment defense. We affirm.
A prisoner “may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if and only if it
conclusively appears from the record that counsel did not provide
effective assistance.” United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238,
241 (4th Cir.) (alteration and ellipsis omitted), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 215 (2014). Absent such a showing, ineffective
assistance claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development
of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1
(4th Cir. 2010). Because the record here does not conclusively

-- 2 of 3 --

3
establish the alleged grounds for Cruse’s claims, Cruse does not
meet this demanding standard. These claims should be raised, if
at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 --