UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4656
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MALCOLM EUGENE GOLSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-47)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 26, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. LaFratta, MAIN STREET LAW OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Eugene Golson pled guilty to distributing fifty
grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2000). The presentence investigation report
(“PSR”) recommended that Golson be sentenced as a career offender
based on the instant offense and his prior felony convictions. The
district court adopted the findings in the PSR and sentenced Golson
to 263 months’ imprisonment.
Golson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising one issue: whether
Golson received ineffective assistance of counsel. Golson was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
declined to do so.
Golson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
should be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), because the record in this appeal does not
conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel. United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Golson’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
- 2 -
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 -