United States of America v. Alonzo Dale Jones, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONZO DALE JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4657

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONZO DALE JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr -00035-WO-1; 1:18-cr-00058-
WO-1)

Submitted: June 11, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020

2

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew
G. T. Martin, United States Attorney, Nicole R. DuPre, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Alonzo Dale Jones, Jr., of possession with intent to distribute 28
grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base,
a quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, and a
quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of Oxycodone, all in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2018). Based on these convictions, the district court
revoked the term of supervised release Jones was serving for a 2010 conviction and
imposed a 36-month revocation sentence, to run consecutively to the 130-month sentence
imposed for the new criminal conduct. In these consolidated appeals, Jones challenges his
convictions and the revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the
jury’s consideration of the 2010 conviction.
Generally, claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal.
United States v. Maynes, 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018). Instead, such claims should
be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion to permit adequate development of the
record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 215, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). An exception
exists, however, when “an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of
the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016).
Because the record before us does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance
of counsel, we conclude that Jones’ claim should be raised in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

4

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED