UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES MATTHEW PARSONS, a/k/a Prudy, a/k/a Pretty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00008-RLV-DSC-1)
Submitted: June 7, 2011 Decided: June 15, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Matthew Parsons pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006), and using and carrying one or more firearms in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). The district court granted the
Government’s motion for departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2007), and sentenced Parsons to 270
months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he notes that Parsons
generally waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement but
questions whether defense counsel provided ineffective
assistance at sentencing. Parsons was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The
Government elected not to file a responsive brief. ∗
Appellate counsel contends that Parsons’s district
court counsel, who has been replaced on appeal, provided
∗
Because the Government has not sought enforcement of the
appellate waiver, we are not precluded from reviewing this
appeal. United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th
Cir. 2007) (stating that, if Anders brief is filed in case with
appeal waiver, Government’s failure to respond “allow[s] this
court to perform the required Anders review”).
2
ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to object to the
district court’s explanation of the sentence. An ineffective
assistance of counsel claim generally is not cognizable on
direct appeal but instead should be asserted in a post-
conviction motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010).
See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.
1999). We may address a claim of ineffective assistance on
direct appeal only if counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears from the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d
233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Because the record does not
conclusively establish that defense counsel was ineffective, the
claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his 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 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
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4