United States of America v. Reginald Marlin Ismel, a/k/a New York Junior

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7837
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD MARLIN ISMEL, a/k/a New York Junior,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-94-8; CA-99-924-7)
Submitted: October 6, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Marlin Ismel, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*On May 14, 2004, we denied Ismel’s motion to expand the
certificate of appealability.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In 1994, Reginald Marlin Ismel was sentenced to two
concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole for his part
in a drug conspiracy and the related murder of Anthony Jones. In
1998, this court affirmed Ismel’s conviction. Ismel filed a motion
to set aside his conviction in the district court, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The district court granted the Government’s
motion for summary judgment and denied Ismel’s § 2255 motion.
However, upon reconsideration, the court granted Ismel’s request
for a certificate of appealability on his claim that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of
co-conspirator testimony detailing Ismel’s confession to having
Jones killed. It is this claim that is now before this court. *
To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment due to
ineffective assistance of counsel, Ismel must demonstrate that (1)
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been
different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694
(1984). Assuming, as the district court did, that counsel’s
failure to object fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness, we agree with the district court that Ismel has not

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
demonstrated that but for counsel’s actions, the result would have
been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of Ismel’s § 2255 motion on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Ismel, Nos. CR-94-8; CA-99-924-7
(W.D. Va. June 10, 2003). We deny Ismel’s motion for appointment
of counsel. 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

-- 3 of 3 --