UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS CLEMMONS SILER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-96-106)
Submitted: August 19, 2005 Decided: September 20, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne R. Littlejohn, LAW OFFICE OF ANNE R. LITTLEJOHN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In 1996 Douglas Clemmons Siler was sentenced to
eighty-seven months of imprisonment and four years of supervised
release. Siler began serving his term of supervised release on
December 7, 2001. On April 14, 2004, he was arrested for violating
his supervised release. At his hearing on the matter, Siler
admitted the violations and was sentenced to eleven months of
incarceration and thirty-seven months of supervised release
thereafter. Siler’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and a
motion to withdraw as counsel.
On appeal, Siler’s new counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are
no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising one issue: whether
Siler received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district
court proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson,
195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). To allow for adequate
development of the record, claims of ineffective assistance
generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
We find that Siler has failed to establish ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders,
- 2 -
we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal.* We therefore affirm Siler’s
conviction and sentence. 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 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
*
Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocation of
supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual Ch. 7 Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not
impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
- 3 -