UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4402
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAL OLLIE CLEMONS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00788-HFF-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermal Ollie Clemons pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine
base. The district court sentenced Clemons to 186 months in
prison. On appeal, Clemons’ counsel has filed an Anders * brief,
stating that there are no viable grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. Although informed of his right to do so, Clemons
has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
Clemons asserts that his attorney was ineffective for
incorrectly predicting the applicable Guidelines range prior to
Clemons’ guilty plea. However, ineffective assistance claims
are more appropriately raised in a motion filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), unless counsel’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. See United
States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). After
review of the record, we find no conclusive evidence that
counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and we accordingly
decline to consider these claims on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm Clemons’
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Clemons, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Clemons
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 Clemons. 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