United States v. Parris , 169 F. App'x 757 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4737
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT MCDONALD PARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-04-15)
Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert McDonald Parris appeals his conviction and
ninety-four month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than
500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000).
Counsel has filed an Anders* brief in which he states that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that defense
counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing when he
argued for a sentence at the bottom of the Guideline range rather
than a more lenient sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Parris was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally
not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119
F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See id.; United States v.
Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists when
the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United
States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that any deficiencies in
counsel’s performance are not conclusively demonstrated.
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Parris’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Parris, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Parris requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that 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 Parris.
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 -