UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4755
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LAMONT SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00010-FDW-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, PLLC, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lamont Smith appeals his conviction and the
120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Smith’s counsel has
filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court erred in imposing Smith’s
sentence, and whether Smith received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Smith has filed no pro se supplemental brief. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We conclude that Smith’s sentence was procedurally and
substantively reasonable. He was sentenced within the statutory
maximum of 120 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2006).
Additionally, his guideline range was correctly calculated, the
guidelines were treated as advisory, the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and the court
adequately stated its reasons for imposing sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir.
2007).
Smith also questions whether he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. This court, however, “may address
[claims of ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only if the
lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.”
2
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
We find that Smith has failed to meet this standard, and
therefore decline to review this claim on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we 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. 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