UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4270
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH ALLEN CARSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-813)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2006
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Greenville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kenneth Allen Carson appeals his convictions and 360-
month sentence for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(a), (d) (2000); use and carry
of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2 and 924(c) (2000); and being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e) (2000).
Carson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s
denial of Carson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and alleging
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but stating that he finds
no meritorious grounds for appeal. Carson filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising similar issues and challenging his
sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel challenges the district
court’s denial of Carson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
contending that although Carson conspired to commit robbery, he had
no knowledge that his co-conspirator had a firearm, and thus he
committed perjury in pleading guilty to the firearm charges. We
review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d
1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). “A defendant has no ‘absolute right’
to withdraw a guilty plea, and the district court has discretion to
- 2 -
decide whether a ‘fair and just reason’ exists upon which to grant
a withdrawal.” United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th
Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1226 (2004). After careful
review of the record, we conclude the district court’s denial of
Carson’s motion was a proper exercise of discretion. Id.; United
States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991) (setting forth
six factors to be considered when a defendant moves to withdraw his
guilty plea).
Carson also contends his trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by instructing him not to admit the truth in
court. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally
not considered on direct appeal. To succeed on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, a defendant
must show conclusively from the face of the record that counsel
provided ineffective representation. United States v. James, 337
F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1134 (2004).
We conclude Carson has not made such a showing.
Finally, Carson objects to the calculation of his
criminal history points and the court’s finding that he was a armed
career criminal under Booker. Because Carson did not raise this
issue in the district court, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). We conclude these
challenges to the calculation of Carson’s sentence fail. See
United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284-86 (4th Cir. 2005)
- 3 -
(holding that prior convictions could not be severed from their
essential components, and these components include integral facts
such as the statutory violation and date of offense; therefore,
these facts were inherent to convictions not extraneous to them);
United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 350 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury was not
violated by district court’s reliance on prior convictions for
sentencing under Armed Career Criminal Act).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Carson’s convictions and sentence and deny his
motion to relieve counsel and appoint 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 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
- 4 -