United States of America v. Jimmy Lee Williams, a/k/a Jimmy Lee Williamson, a/k/a J. J. Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jimmy Lee Williamson, a/k/a J. J.
Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy C. Williamson,
a/k/a Jimmy J. Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy L. Williamson, a/k/a
Ayamawat Bidziil, a/k/a J. Edwards, a/k/a John Bruce, a/k/a
Aaron Bruce,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00073-FDW-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the
United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and money laundering and
aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
and 2 (2012). The district court sentenced Williams to a total of
105 months’ imprisonment. Williams appeals, raising a single claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on
the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not
generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton,
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be
raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in
order to permit sufficient development of the record. United
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because
the record does not conclusively establish that counsel provided
ineffective assistance to Williams, we conclude that this claim
should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
deny Williams’ motion to file a pro se brief. See United States
v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011). 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --