UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DEVON ERIC SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00114-F-2)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas E. Kingsbery, THARRINGTON SMITH, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Devon Eric Smith appeals his conviction and twelve-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to simple assault on
a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2012).
On appeal, 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 Smith was
deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of
counsel. Smith was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has
declined to file a response brief. Following a careful review
of the record, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether Smith’s trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance. Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel “are generally not cognizable on direct
appeal . . . unless it conclusively appears from the record that
defense counsel did not provide effective representation.”
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, to allow for
adequate development of the record, ineffective assistance
claims generally should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1
(4th Cir. 2010). Because we conclude the record does not
plainly establish that Smith’s trial counsel rendered
2
ineffective assistance, we decline to consider his claim at this
juncture, without prejudice to his ability to raise such a claim
in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smith 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 Smith.
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