United States v. Risper ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 98-4241
RODNEY EARL RISPER, a/k/a Menace,
a/k/a Rodney Risper,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-134-BR)
Submitted: May 11, 1999
Decided: September 23, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL,*
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Deveraux L. Cannick, AIELLO & CANNICK, Maspeth, New York,
for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne
_________________________________________________________________
*Senior Judge Hall participated in the consideration of this case but
died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a
quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Eric Evenson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Rodney Earl Risper appeals his convictions and sen-
tences, pursuant to his plea of guilty, on one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West 1981 & Supp. 1998), and one
count of use and carry of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1994) (current version at 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924 (c)(1) (West Supp. 1999). Risper contends that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel, that Government prosecutors
engaged in misconduct, and that the evidence was insufficient to sup-
port his guilty plea to the § 924(c)(1) charge. We affirm.
Because the claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and
prosecutorial misconduct rely on evidence not in the record, we find
that these claims are better raised, if at all, in a motion under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). See United States v.
Hanley, 974 F.2d 14, 16 n.2 (4th Cir. 1992) (court will not review
ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal unless it con-
clusively appears on the record that appellant was not provided with
effective representation).
Looking at the entire record, we find that the evidence was suffi-
cient to support the finding that Risper carried a firearm during and
in relation to a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. Mitchell,
104 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Zorrilla, 982 F.2d
28, 30 (1st Cir. 1992).
2
Accordingly, we affirm Risper's convictions and sentences. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3