United States v. Hood , 182 F. App'x 234 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4202
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTONIO HOOD, a/k/a Tony,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CR-02-1173-JFA)
    Submitted:   April 21, 2006                   Decided:   May 25, 2006
    Before LUTTIG,* MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Marshall Prince, Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    *
    Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
    participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by quorum of
    the panel pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Hood appeals his conviction and sentence imposed
    after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
    intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base or crack
    cocaine and five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000).      On appeal, Hood’s counsel filed a
    brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967), stating
    there were no meritorious issues, but raising the issue of whether
    the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting Hood’s guilty
    plea and whether the life sentence was required.        Hood filed a pro
    se supplemental brief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
    We affirm.
    We find no error with respect to either the Rule 11
    proceeding or the statutory mandatory life sentence. Hood contends
    counsel was ineffective on a number of counts.           Insofar as Hood
    claims   counsel   was   ineffective   for   not   challenging   the   drug
    quantity in the presentence investigation report, this claim is
    without merit because Hood was sentenced to a statutory sentence.
    The recommended sentence under the guidelines was not relevant.
    With respect to his other challenges to counsel’s effectiveness,
    the proper proceeding in which to pursue an ineffective assistance
    of counsel claim is not a direct appeal but a collateral proceeding
    under 
    18 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).     United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 120 (4th Cir. 1991).    We will entertain such a claim on direct
    - 2 -
    appeal only if it “conclusively appears” from the record that the
    defendant’s counsel was ineffective. United States v. Russell, 
    221 F.3d 615
    ,    619   n.5   (4th   Cir.   2000).   Because   the    record   is
    incomplete in this regard, the claim will not be reviewed.
    As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.              We therefore
    affirm Hood’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel
    inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
    Court of the United States for further review.              If the client
    requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a
    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
    for leave to withdraw from representation.          Counsel’s motion must
    state that a copy thereof was served on the client.               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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4202

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 234

Judges: Gregory, Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/25/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023