UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK THOMAS, a/k/a Derrick Ballafonte, a/k/a Alton
Dawkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00121-MR-1)
Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 17, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Gibson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment
entered pursuant to his guilty plea to unauthorized reentry of a
removed alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony
offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
Counsel for Thomas filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but asks the court to
review whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing and whether
the district judge exhibited bias in sentencing. Thomas has
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising these same issues.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Thomas contends that counsel was ineffective at
sentencing. 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). We have reviewed
the record and conclude that Thomas has failed to meet the high
burden necessary to advance an ineffective assistance claim on
direct appeal.
Next, Thomas asserts that the judge was biased at
sentencing because he failed to adequately consider Thomas’s
sentencing arguments. Our review discloses no bias. The
district judge made no comment that would suggest “an apparent
2
disposition toward a party that is wrongful or inappropriate.”
United States v. Gordon, 61 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 1995). The
fact that the court ruled against Thomas with respect to a
sentencing matter does not demonstrate bias. See Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. 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 such 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 of the motion was served
on the client. As we have already conducted the necessary
independent review of the record, we deny Thomas’s pending
motion for an independent examination as moot. Finally, 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