UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4080
CLAUDETTE STAPLETON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.
(CR-99-62)
Submitted: August 10, 2000
Decided: August 28, 2000
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Samuel H. Shamansky, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Rebecca A.
Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Claudette Stapleton appeals her jury convictions of conspiring to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and conspir-
ing to launder money with intent to promote and carry on a conspir-
acy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana.
Stapleton argues her trial counsel operated under a conflict of interest
that adversely affected his performance.
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.
We note the record reveals Stapleton waived her Sixth Amendment
right to separate representation after extensive inquiry by the district
court and after the court's admonition that she would be wise to retain
separate counsel. Furthermore, on this record, we do not find coun-
sel's initial representation of Timothy Stapleton and continued repre-
sentation of Greg Borders (both co-defendants of Appellant) created
an actual conflict of interest or that any potential conflict adversely
affected counsel's representation of Stapleton. Thus, Stapleton should
assert her ineffective assistance claim in a motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).
We therefore affirm Stapleton's convictions. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2