UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WALTEZ JEMEL LATHAM, a/k/a Taz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-00207-TLW-2)
Submitted: August 15, 2007 Decided: August 27, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Waltez Jemel Latham pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine base and cocaine (“Count 1”),
as well as one count of possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime (“Count 6”), in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
(b)(1)(B); 846 (2000). Latham was sentenced by the district court
to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we
affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 as well as whether the sentence is reasonable. Latham
filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting his counsel provided
ineffective assistance. The Government elected not to file a
responsive brief.
Because Latham did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, any alleged Rule 11 error is reviewed by
this court for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Latham must
show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the
error affected his substantial rights. United States v. White, 405
- 2 -
F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the record and
conclude the court committed no reversible error.
Latham next contends that his sentence is unreasonable.
The district court appropriately treated the Guidelines as
advisory, properly calculated and considered the advisory guideline
range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
As Latham was subject to a statutory minimum of ten years for Count
1, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and a mandatory consecutive five
year term for Count 6, see 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A), the court
properly determined that the statutory provisions, which exceeded
the advisory guideline range, controlled. Thus, Latham’s 180-month
sentence, which is the minimum required by statute, is reasonable.
Finally, Latham contends his counsel was ineffective for
failing to properly research his case. 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. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 590 (4th
Cir. 1994)). Because the record does not conclusively establish
- 3 -
that counsel was ineffective, we conclude Latham’s claim is not
cognizable on appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Latham’s motion for appointment of 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 a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -