UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE LAMONT SOLOMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-348)
Submitted: December 31, 2003 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra
Jane Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwayne Lamont Solomon appeals his conviction and 396
month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)-(b)(1)(B) (2000), possession of a firearm as a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)
(2000), and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2000). On appeal,
Solomon’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Solomon has filed a pro se
brief as well.
First, Solomon, through counsel, asserts he was not
competent to enter a guilty plea. We review this claim for plain
error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). This
claim is meritless. The record reveals no grounds for Solomon to
challenge his competence. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402,
462 (1960); United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 395-96 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Second, Solomon, pro se, raises several challenges to the
voluntariness of his plea agreement. We review these claims for
plain error. General, 278 F.3d at 393. Solomon’s plea colloquy
and his statements at the plea colloquy reveal these claims are
meritless. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir.
1991).
- 2 -
Third, Solomon, pro se, claims that the Government failed
to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000), and that he was deprived of
his right to allocution. The record reveals that these claims are
meritless.
Fourth, Solomon, pro se, asserts his counsel was
ineffective. These claims are waived, United States v. Willis, 992
F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1003), and sound in habeas. United States
v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Solomon’s convictions and
sentences. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and find no other 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
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 -