UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4650
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROY DANIEL WEISS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:93-cr-00024-LHT)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roy Daniel Weiss, Jr., was convicted in 1994 on three
counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) (2000), and one
count of the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 147 months of
imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. Weiss began
serving his term of supervised release on November 6, 2003. On
March 2, 2007, the probation officer filed a petition alleging
Weiss violated the terms of his release, specifically that he
failed to report to his probation officer as instructed and that he
failed to work regularly at a lawful occupation. At the hearing on
the matter, Weiss admitted the violations and the court entered
judgment continuing his supervised release under existing terms.
On appeal, Weiss’ counsel has filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no
meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the issue of whether
Weiss received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district
court proceedings. Weiss was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government did not
file a reply brief. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson,
195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). To allow for adequate
- 2 -
development of the record, claims of ineffective assistance
generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). We find
that Weiss has failed to establish ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 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 contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -