UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4892
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUENTIN A. EICHELBERGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:05-cr-0049-SB)
Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 28, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, PA, Beaufort, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney,
Brent Alan Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quentin A. Eichelberger pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and distribution of a quantity of cocaine (Count 2), two
counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of
a quantity of cocaine (Counts 4 and 8), two counts of possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Counts 5 and
9), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (Counts 6 and
7), and one count of possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of cocaine base (Count 14), in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), (c)(1)(A), (e)(1); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C); 846 (2000). The district court sentenced
Eichelberger to a total term of imprisonment of 437 months. On
appeal, Eichelberger contends his counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to object to the court’s imposition of a
twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence on the second
§ 924(c)(1)(A) offense charged in Count 9. We affirm.
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is generally
not cognizable on direct appeal, but should instead be asserted in
a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United
States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). However,
we have recognized an exception to the general rule when “it
‘conclusively appears’ from the record that defense counsel did not
provide effective representation.” Id. (quoting United States v.
- 2 -
Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 590 (4th Cir. 1994)). Because the record
does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective,
Eichelberger’s claim is not cognizable on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -