UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4928
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD LEN TAYLOR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00028-2; 5:06-cv-00100)
Submitted: July 25, 2007 Decided: November 8, 2007
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James O. Rice, Jr., EVANS & RICE, PLLC, Asheville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Len Taylor, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a
quantity of methamphetamine and using and carrying a firearm during
and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 851 (2000) and 18 U.S.C.
§§ 24(c), 2 (2000). The court sentenced him to 322 months’
imprisonment. On appeal Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
However, counsel states that Taylor has requested that he raise the
following claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure
to thoroughly explain the import of the proceedings against him in
that he has only a ninth grade education and did not fully
understand the nature of the proceedings; (2) failure to interview
several key witnesses; (3) coercing him to plead guilty to the
charge of knowingly and unlawfully using and carrying a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, a crime for which he is in
fact innocent; and (4) refusing to assert his contention that the
enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) was improper as it was
based upon an offense committed within the scope of the instant
conspiracy. Taylor was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so. Upon a thorough review of
the record, we affirm.
- 2 -
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be
brought in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
unless it conclusively appears from the face of the record that
appellant’s counsel was ineffective. See United States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We conclude that because the
first three issues raised by Taylor require consideration of facts
not contained in the existing record, they are not ripe for
consideration on direct appeal. Taylor’s claim that the
enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) was improper as it was
based upon an offense committed within the scope of the instant
conspiracy is without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Taylor’s conviction and sentence. We deny
counsel's motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Taylor requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion at that time.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Taylor. 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 -