UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BILLY EUGENE PROFFITT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-04-43)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Eugene Proffitt, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture and
possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
(2000). Proffitt’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as potential
issues whether Proffitt’s federal conviction subjected him to
double jeopardy and whether his counsel was ineffective. Proffitt
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find Proffitt’s claim of double jeopardy without
merit. It is well-settled that under the dual sovereignty
doctrine, federal prosecutions are not barred on double jeopardy
grounds by a previous state prosecution for the same or similar
conduct. United States v. Christmas, 222 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir.
2000) (citing Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)).
Next, we find Proffitt’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim is not properly raised on direct appeal. Claims of
ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal unless
conclusively established on the record. United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). To allow for
adequate development of the record, claims of ineffective
- 2 -
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 no evidence in the record conclusively establishing trial
counsel’s ineffectiveness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Proffitt’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 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 -