UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARVIN DAVID PANNELL, a/k/a P,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-02-6)
Submitted: January 23, 2004 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barron M. Helgoe, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P., Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marvin David Pannell appeals his convictions and
sentences following his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and carrying a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Pannell was
notified of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
The sole issue asserted in counsel’s brief is that
Pannell received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to
his guilty plea because he was not advised of the elements of
carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The
record discloses, however, that the district court conducted a
thorough colloquy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Pannell’s
guilty plea. The court advised Pannell of the elements of the
offenses to which he was pleading guilty and concluded that Pannell
understood them. The court also thoroughly apprised Pannell of the
trial rights he was giving up in pleading guilty and the possible
sentences he faced. Pannell stated that he was entering his guilty
plea voluntarily and that he was satisfied with the services of his
attorney. Because ineffective assistance of counsel is not
apparent on the face of the record on appeal, such a claim should
- 2 -
be asserted on collateral review. See United States v. DeFusco,
949 F. 2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991).
We have, as required by Anders, reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Pannell’s convictions and sentences. 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 Pannell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court to withdraw from representation. 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 -