UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL TEDDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00331-JFM-3)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Michael Tedder pled
guilty to conspiracy to distribute and intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced
Tedder to 168 months’ imprisonment, after departing from the
applicable sentencing range, plus a five year term of supervised
release. Tedder’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel, but concluding that no meritorious issues
for appeal exist. Tedder was advised of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but did not do so.
On direct appeal, a defendant may raise a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel “if and only if it
conclusively appears from the record that his counsel did not
provide effective assistance.” United States v. Martinez, 136
F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). To prove ineffective assistance,
the defendant must show two things: (1) “that counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). In the context of a
guilty plea, “the defendant must show that there is a reasonable
2
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have
pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill
v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Our review of the record
reveals no conclusive evidence that Tedder’s counsel did not
provide effective assistance.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Tedder’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Tedder, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Tedder requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Tedder. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3