UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4726
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL JAMES PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 00-4727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL JAMES PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-99-43, CR-99-75)
Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: July 8, 2002
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Rodney Kight, Jr., KIGHT LAW OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael James Patterson brings
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his plea and
sentencing on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000) and one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999 &
Supp. 2001). Patterson’s appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but addressing whether
Patterson’s counsel conclusively provided ineffective assistance of
counsel at either Patterson’s plea hearings or sentencing hearing
and whether any other meritorious claims exist.* We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and find no evidence on the face of the record
that Patterson’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of
counsel at either his plea hearing or at sentencing.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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
*
Patterson was notified by counsel of his right to file a
supplemental brief raising issues he deemed significant and has
elected not to do so.
3
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 client. Finally, 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
4