UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY ALAN ARTHUR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00051-MR-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey Alan Arthur pled guilty to conspiracy to
manufacture and possess with intent to distribute at least 500
grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The
Government moved for a downward departure from the statutory
minimum of 240 months’ imprisonment. The court granted the
motion and sentenced Arthur to 180 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Arthur’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Arthur
received ineffective assistance of counsel below. Arthur was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
did not do so. The Government declined to file a responsive
brief.
Counsel asks us to review whether Arthur received
ineffective assistance of counsel because Arthur was allowed to
plead guilty without fully understanding the potential
punishment. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
generally not cognizable on direct appeal, unless counsel’s
“ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.” United
States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We
conclude that the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
counsel was ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687-88 (1984). Accordingly, in order to allow for the
2
adequate development of the record, Arthur must bring his claim
in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. See United
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216-17 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Arthur’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Arthur, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Arthur 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 Arthur. 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