United States v. Page

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4876 JUSTIN THOMAS PAGE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-99-4) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Char- lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Justin Thomas Page appeals his conviction and sentence imposed following a guilty plea to conspiring to possess with intent to distrib- ute Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). Page's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Coun- sel states there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Page was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. In accor- dance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered the briefs on appeal and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cogni- zable on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, such a claim is more properly addressed in a collateral proceeding in which counsel has the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). An ineffective assistance of coun- sel claim may be brought, however, when the record conclusively establishes counsel's representation was constitutionally ineffective. See King, 119 F.3d at 295. The record does not conclusively establish Page's counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. Thus, we conclude Page's inef- fective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a motion pur- suant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we affirm Page's conviction and sentence. This court requires that 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 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 the cli- ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con- 2 tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3