UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL STEWART, a/k/a Marly Mar, a/k/a Playboy, a/k/a Cuz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00415-WDQ-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Allen H. Orenberg, THE ORENBERG LAW FIRM, North Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher M. Mason, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Stewart appeals his conviction and 262-month
sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty plea
to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”) and one
kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006). Stewart’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Stewart was denied effective assistance of
counsel at any stage of the proceedings. Stewart was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file
one. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and dismiss
in part.
Stewart contends that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel in the district court. Claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable
on direct appeal. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th
Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the
record, a defendant must bring such claims in a 28 U.S.C.A. §
2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at
295. Because Stewart does not specify any actual errors by
2
counsel and because the record does not conclusively show that
Stewart’s counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider this
issue on direct appeal.
With regard to Stewart’s sentence, we do not have
jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal. Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(c) (2006), a defendant’s appeal of a sentence to which he
stipulated in a Fed. R. Crimi. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is
limited to circumstances where “his sentence was imposed in
violation of law [or] was imposed as a result of an incorrect
application of the sentencing guidelines.” United States v.
Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted; alteration in original); United
States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1997).
Because none of the exceptions to the limit on appeals of
stipulated sentences applies in Stewart’s case, we dismiss the
appeal of Stewart’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Stewart’s conviction and dismiss
the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of the 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
3
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4