United States v. Aurelius Edmonds

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: 21-4303
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4303 Doc: 97 Filed: 03/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AURELIUS EDMONDS, a/k/a Bunkie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00225-1)

Submitted: February 8, 2024 Decided: March 8, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Elizabeth N. Gaba, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4303 Doc: 97 Filed: 03/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Aurelius Edmonds appeals his conviction and the 300-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute

500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. On the Government’s motion, we previously dismissed Edmonds’ appeal in part

pursuant to the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement but declined to dismiss the

appeal as to Edmonds’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following the

completion of briefing on those claims, we affirm.

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 . . . 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 generally are 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. Kemp,

88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023).

To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant 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). To establish deficient

performance, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness,” id. at 688, and overcome “a strong presumption that

counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” id. at

689. To establish prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4303 Doc: 97 Filed: 03/08/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.” United States v. Allmendinger, 894 F.3d 121, 126 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

The current record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance before the district court. Edmonds’ claims thus “should be raised, if at all, in a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Kemp, 88 F.4th at 546 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, to the extent we have not already dismissed Edmonds’ appeal, we affirm the

criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED