United States v. Grant

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Grant

468 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 2012

DocketNo. 11-3026

StatusPublished

This text of 468 F. App'x 9 (United States v. Grant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Grant, 468 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[10]*10 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion to supplement the record and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be denied. See United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908, 909-10 (D.C.Cir.2003) (court will remand ineffective assistance claim for evidentiary hearing “unless ‘the trial record alone conclusively shows’ that the defendant either is or is not entitled to relief’ (quoting United States v. Fennell, 53 F.3d 1296, 1303-04 (D.C.Cir.1995))). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment entered February 24, 2011, be affirmed. A remand is unwarranted because appellant has not raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 238 (D.C.Cir.2010). Appellant has not alleged facts sufficient to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s performance. Id.; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[10]*10 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion to supplement the record and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be denied. See United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908, 909-10 (D.C.Cir.2003) (court will remand ineffective assistance claim for evidentiary hearing “unless ‘the trial record alone conclusively shows’ that the defendant either is or is not entitled to relief’ (quoting United States v. Fennell, 53 F.3d 1296, 1303-04 (D.C.Cir.1995))). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment entered February 24, 2011, be affirmed. A remand is unwarranted because appellant has not raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 238 (D.C.Cir.2010). Appellant has not alleged facts sufficient to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s performance. Id.; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-grant-cadc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack