UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAJUAN GORDON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00068-WCB)
Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon
L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaJuan Gordon appeals from his conviction and 240-month
sentence after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000). Gordon’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but asking this court to review the district court’s
failure to independently assess the sources used to support the
findings in the presentence report; specifically, that Gordon was
responsible for 1763.3 grams of cocaine base, as well as a two-
level offense level enhancement for possession of a firearm.
Gordon has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he claims
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no
error, we affirm.
When reviewing the district court’s application of the
sentencing guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact for
clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
In his plea agreement, Gordon pled guilty to distribution of
cocaine base and further stipulated that the total drug relevant
conduct was 1763.3 grams of cocaine base. After reviewing the
Government’s investigative materials and debriefing interviews of
witnesses and Gordon’s co-defendants, the probation officer also
concluded Gordon was responsible for 1763.3 grams of cocaine.
- 2 -
Despite Gordon’s objections to this finding, he provided no
substantive evidence at the sentencing hearing to challenge the
drug total, only casting general aspersions as to the credibility
of the sources relied upon by the probation officer. See generally
United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990)).
Therefore, in light of Gordon’s stipulation and the information
presented in the presentence report, we find the district court’s
determination of the total amount of cocaine base attributable to
Gordon was not erroneous.
Gordon’s objection to the increase in his offense level
for possession of a firearm, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2005), also fails. The probation officer
relied on statements made by co-defendants JoAnn Christian and
George Carter, both of whom admitted they were involved in a deal
whereby Christian’s AK-47 was given to Gordon in exchange for cash
and cocaine base. Based on the guilty pleas entered by Christian
and Carter and their relevant admissions, and in light of the lack
of evidence produced by Gordon to challenge the findings in the
presentence report, we find the district court did not err in
applying a two-level offense level adjustment for Gordon’s
possession of a firearm.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Gordon alleges he was
targeted by a police officer who concocted the drug charges against
- 3 -
him. Gordon contends he was not able to oppose the charges because
he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Gordon
also alleges he was promised he would only receive a ten to
eighteen—month sentence. A claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion rather
than on direct appeal unless the record conclusively demonstrates
ineffective assistance. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295
(4th Cir. 1997). Such a claim cannot be fairly adjudicated on
direct appeal when the appellant has not raised the issue before
the district court and there is no statement from counsel on the
record. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th
Cir. 1991). There is no evidence in the record to support Gordon’s
claims of ineffective assistance. Therefore, these claims should
be raised in a § 2255 motion rather than on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Gordon’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires 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 in 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
- 4 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -