Opinion
Nos. 05-7138, 05-7205, 05-7212, 07-4916.
Submitted: October 31, 2008.
Decided: December 9, 2008.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge and Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (8:05-cr-00254; 8:05-ca-01983).
In Nos. 05-7138/7205/7212, David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. In No. 07-1916, Donald Kaplan, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jonathan Biran, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
In these consolidated cases, David Kissi appeals from his convictions of bankruptcy fraud, obstruction of justice, and criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. §§ 157, 401(3), and 1503 (2006). In No. 05-7138, Kissi appeals the district court's detention order entered in May 2005. In Nos. 05-7205/7212, Kissi appeals from a district court order denying fifteen pending motions. Our review of the record with respect to these appeals discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kissi, No. 8:05-cr-00254 (D. Md. May 27, 2005; July 26, 2005).
Appeal 07-4916 is Kissi's direct criminal appeal. Kissi's appellate counsel claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an expert witness to testify regarding Kissi's mental disorders. To allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must ordinarily bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 and Supp. 2008) motion unless it conclusively appears on the face of the record that counsel provided inadequate assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). We find that the record does not establish ineffective representation. We have also reviewed the claims raised by Kissi in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm Kissi's conviction. 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.