UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY LAMONT CAMERON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-114)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Lamont Cameron appeals his conviction and sentence on
a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) (2000). He was
sentenced to 208 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised
release, and a $100 special assessment. Cameron’s attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), discussing the propriety of Cameron’s status as an armed
career offender criminal, but concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Cameron was notified of his right
to file an additional brief, and he has done so. In addition to
review of the issues raised by Cameron and by his attorney, in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the
entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
By counsel, as well as pro se, Cameron challenges his
classification as an armed career criminal. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that Cameron satisfied the criteria for
statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000), as an armed
career criminal. United States v. Bowden, 975 F.2d 1080, 1085 (4th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Taylor, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). In
addition, Cameron has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Such claims are not properly raised on direct appeal
where, as here, they do not appear on the face of the record.
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
2
Accordingly, we affirm Cameron’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 client. 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
3