United States v. Washington

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 01-4417 ALFRED WASHINGTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-378) Submitted: December 12, 2001 Decided: January 24, 2002 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greens- boro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Alfred Washington, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order imposing a twenty-four month imprisonment term upon his convic- tion for possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic restraining order, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Washington’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the length of Wash- ington’s sentence, but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Washington filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the length of his sentence and contending that counsel’s representation was inadequate. The district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Washington’s guilty plea, and nothing in the record calls into question the voluntariness of the plea. In addition, Washington’s sentence was within the applicable guidelines range, so it is not reviewable. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 (2000); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective, this claim is not properly raised on direct appeal. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Our review of the record and appellate briefs in accordance with Anders reveals no other potentially meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm Washing- ton’s convictions and sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and require that counsel inform Washington, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Washington 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 with- draw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Washington. UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED