United States v. Ingram Cox

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 23, 2020
Docket20-4044
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ingram Cox (United States v. Ingram Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Ingram Cox, (4th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

INGRAM COX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00006-RBS-LRL-3)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melissa J. Warner, LAW OFFICE OF MELISSA J. WARNER, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Daniel T. Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Andrew Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Ingram Cox appeals his conviction and 168-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to manufacture

and distribute heroin. On appeal, Cox contends that his plea counsel rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to advise him that he could be held responsible for his coconspirators’

reasonably foreseeable acts. 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). Because we discern no such

evidence “on the face of this record, we conclude that [Cox’s] claim should be raised, if at

all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id.

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

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

Related

United States v. Thomas Faulls, Sr.
821 F.3d 502 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Ingram Cox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ingram-cox-ca4-2020.