UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KAREEM JAMAAL RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00384-NCT)
Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: February 4, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Romallus O. Murphy, LAW OFFICE OF ROMALLUS O. MURPHY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Jamaal Russell pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and
five hundred grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000), and the district court sentenced him to
188 months in prison and ten years of supervised release.
Russell’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising
the issue of whether Russell received ineffective assistance of
counsel in presenting his objections to the presentence report in
view of counsel’s job change while representing him. Russell was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Adopting the findings and guideline calculations in the
presentence report, the district court determined Russell’s
advisory guideline range was 292 to 365 months, and his mandatory
minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000) was twenty
years in prison. The court granted the Government’s motion for a
downward departure based on Russell’s substantial assistance, and
granted Russell’s counsel’s request that he be sentenced to the low
end of his departure range. On appeal, Anders counsel notes that
Russell filed his own pro se objections to the presentence report,
and his trial attorney moved to withdraw after accepting a position
- 2 -
with a public defender’s office and receiving notice that Russell’s
sentencing would be continued to a date after he left his private
law practice. However, the district court denied the motion to
withdraw, and Anders counsel concludes that Russell’s sentence is
reflective of a significant benefit from his attorney’s
representation. We may address a claim of ineffective assistance
on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears from the record. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d
233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the record and find it
does not conclusively show ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we
conclude that the claim is unreviewable at this stage.*
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 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.
*
Our conclusion that we may not review Russell’s ineffective
assistance claim is not “intended to prejudice, or prejudge, in any
way [his] right to apply for relief in a [habeas corpus]
proceeding, should he choose to invoke such remedy.” United States
v. Mandello, 426 F.2d 1021, 1023 (4th Cir. 1970).
- 3 -
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
- 4 -