UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHARON RAEDELLE WOLFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00113-TSE-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas C. McNabb, Christopher M. Choate, MCNABB ASSOCIATES, PC,
Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States
Attorney, Paul Torzilli, Meredith Mills, Special Assistant United
States Attorneys, Gene Rossi, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Raedelle Wolford was found guilty by a jury of
conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, methadone, and cocaine and to
distribute Schedule II controlled substances near a school (Count
1), and two counts of distributing oxycodone (Counts 3, 4). She
was sentenced to 108 months of incarceration. On appeal, Wolford
raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by failing
to sua sponte order a competency hearing, and (2) whether she
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
First, we find no abuse of discretion by the district
court for failing to order a competency hearing. United States
v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating review
standard). Second, Wolford has failed to meet the demanding burden
of showing ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct
appeal. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not
cognizable on direct appeal, unless it conclusively appears from
the record that counsel provided ineffective assistance. United
States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003); United States
v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Rather, to allow
for adequate development of the record, claims of ineffective
assistance generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -