UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4140
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ROY WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00021-LHT-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Litka, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY LITKA, LLC, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Wood pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). The district court
sentenced Wood to 180 months of imprisonment and Wood now
appeals. His appellate attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
Wood’s trial counsel provided effective assistance, but stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although Wood
was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was
deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). With respect to the first prong, “the defendant must
show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In addition,
“[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly
deferential.” Id. at 689. Under the second prong of the test
in the context of a conviction following a guilty plea, a
defendant can show prejudice only by demonstrating “a reasonable
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).
2
Furthermore, this court may address a claim of
ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United
States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the
record. We therefore decline to address this claim on direct
appeal.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Wood, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Wood 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 Wood. 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