UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4525
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LESTER KIRBY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-111-BR)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory J. Ramage, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY RAMAGE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Following a jury trial, Robert Lester Kirby, Jr., was
convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), possession with intent
to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Kirby to a total
imprisonment term of 138 months of imprisonment, to be followed by
a five-year term of supervised release.
Kirby’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 the issue of whether
Kirby received ineffective assistance of counsel. Kirby raises the
same issue in his pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that Kirby’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. See
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 Kirby’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
- 2 -
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 -