Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONNELL KING, a/k/a Life,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-47)
Submitted: April 9, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Ronnell King was convicted by a jury of
carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2119 (2000), possession of a firearm
in relation to a carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
(2000), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(8) and 924(a) (2000). The district court
sentenced King to 235 months in prison. King timely appealed.
King’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) raising three issues:
(1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on the
carjacking charges; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to
convict on the felon in possession charge; and (3) whether the
district court erred in its sentencing calculation relative to the
felon in possession charge. King has filed a pro se supplemental
brief raising various additional issues. King has also filed a
motion to strike the Anders brief submitted by counsel and a motion
for appointment of new counsel. The Government has elected not to
file a brief.
We have reviewed the issues presented by Anders counsel
as well as the issues presented by King in his pro se supplemental
brief and accompanying motions and conclude they are without merit.
Construing the evidence presented at trial in the light most
favorable to the Government, we find it sufficient to support
King’s jury convictions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
- 2 -
60, 80 (1942). We also find King was properly sentenced. As for
King’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the
record on appeal does not conclusively show ineffective assistance,
those claims should be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
action, not on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d
290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this
case in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm King’s convictions and sentence.1
We further deny King’s motion to strike the Anders brief and deny
his motion for appointment of new counsel. 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
1
Counsel for King has filed a motion seeking permission to
file a supplemental brief and joint appendix so as to challenge
certain aspects of his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.
Ct. 2531 (2004). The motion is hereby granted, and the motion to
file supplemental briefs is deemed to provide the supplemental
argument regarding the effects of Blakely. After consideration of
the order issued by the en banc court in United States v. Hammoud,
No. 03-4253 (4th Cir. August 2, 2004), we find no error in King’s
sentence.
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -