UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4591
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDY WAYNE HANDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-13-FO)
Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vaughan S. Winborne, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy Wayne Handy appeals his conviction and 169-month
sentence for distribution of cocaine base and aiding and abetting
the distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §
841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Handy
asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We
affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not
cognizable on direct appeal. To allow for adequate development of
a record, a defendant generally must bring such a claim in a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion unless the record
conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, the record
does not conclusively establish that Handy’s counsel was
ineffective. We therefore affirm Handy’s conviction and sentence
without prejudice to Handy’s ability to assert his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.
1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Handy’s conviction and sentence. 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
2