UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4193
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JOE LOUIS JORDAN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00011-RLV-DSC-1)
Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: November 20, 2013
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, appeals his conviction
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006); using or
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and
abetting same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) & 2 (2006);
and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Jordan’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 Jordan was denied effective assistance
of counsel in the district court. Jordan was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file
one. We affirm.
Jordan’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is
not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes that counsel provided ineffective assistance.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir 2008). To
allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant
ordinarily should bring an ineffective assistance claim in a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. United States v.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because we
conclude that the record on appeal does not conclusively
2
establish that Jordan’s counsel was ineffective, we decline to
consider this issue on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Jordan, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Jordan requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jordan. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3