UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CURTIS ARNOLD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00046-2)
Submitted: April 16, 2007 Decided: May 7, 2007
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas A.
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Curtis Arnold pled guilty
to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West
1999 & Supp. 2006). The district court sentenced him to 262 months
in prison. Arnold timely appealed.
Arnold’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in her opinion there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting that but for
Arnold’s trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, Arnold would not
have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial. Arnold was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
did not file one. We affirm Arnold’s conviction and sentence.
We find that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims
that Arnold seeks to raise are not cognizable on direct appeal. To
allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must
bring such claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion unless the
record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance of counsel.
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999);
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Here,
the record does not conclusively establish that Arnold’s trial
counsel was ineffective.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
- 2 -
therefore affirm Arnold’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Arnold, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Arnold 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 Arnold. 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 -