UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4903
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STANLEY E. HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00478-JFM-5)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen H. Orenberg, THE ORENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C., North Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley E. Harrison pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). He was sentenced at the bottom of
the advisory Guidelines range to 262 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Harrison’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
Harrison received ineffective assistance of counsel below.
Although informed of his right to do so, Harrison has not filed
a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to
file a response. We affirm.
To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was
deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). With respect to the first prong, “the defendant must
show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In addition,
“[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly
deferential.” Id. at 689.
We will address a claim of ineffective assistance on
direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively
2
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. 2011). 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 Harrison, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Harrison 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 Harrison. 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