United States v. Michael Bowers

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

MICHAEL CHAD BOWERS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2011 Decided: June 9, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Michael Chad Bowers appeals the 327-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess

stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006);

possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2) (2006); and two counts of possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for Bowers filed a

brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court

erred in overruling Bowers’ objections to the Presentence Report

(“PSR”) and whether Bowers received ineffective assistance of

counsel. Counsel states, however, that he has found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. Bowers filed a pro se

supplemental brief. We affirm.

Bowers’ objections to the PSR are largely factual in

nature. At sentencing, the district court individually

addressed and rejected Bowers’ objections to the PSR, and

adopted the facts in the PSR. This court reviews such factual

determinations for clear error. United States v. Jenkins, 566

F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed the district

court’s rulings as to each of the claims raised and find no

clear error.

2
Further, Bowers is not entitled to relief on his claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will 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).

Otherwise, such claims are more properly raised in a motion

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). Our

review convinces us that ineffective assistance does not

conclusively appear on the face of this record, and therefore we

decline to address this claim on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Bowers, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Bowers 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 Bowers.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED