UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES DONALD MATHES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00062-JRS)
Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debra D. Corcoran, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Brian Ronald
Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, James Donald Mathes was found
guilty of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to
fifty months in prison. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel.
Mathes has filed a supplemental brief, providing further details
and allegations concerning the alleged ineffective assistance. The
Government elected not to file a responsive brief. Finding no
error, 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. Because the record does
not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective, we
conclude that Mathes’ 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.
This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of
- 2 -
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 the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -