UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4546
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY CURRIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00175-D-1)
Submitted: November 2, 2011 Decided: November 10, 2011
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy J. Sullivan, BRENNAN SULLIVAN & MCKENNA LLP, Greenbelt,
Maryland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Currie pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006).
The district court determined that Currie was an armed career
criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). On January 13,
2011, the district court sentenced Currie to the mandatory
minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment.
Currie filed a pro se notice of appeal on May 9, 2011. On
appeal, Currie’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious issues on appeal but questioning whether Currie
received (i) deficient notice of the Government’s intent to
pursue a § 924(e)(1) sentencing enhancement and (ii) ineffective
assistance of counsel. The Government has declined to file a
responsive brief. Currie was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Currie’s counsel questions whether Currie was entitled
under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) (2006) to notice of the Government’s
intent to rely on prior convictions as predicates for the
§ 924(e)(1) sentencing enhancement. However, the notice
requirements of § 851(a)(1) apply only to controlled substance
related offenses and penalties enumerated in Part D of Title 21
of the United States Code and, thus, do not provide a cognizable
2
basis for relief. Moreover, the Government provided Currie
notice of the predicate convictions used to establish his
§ 924(e) enhancement by listing these convictions in his
presentence report. See United States v. O’Neal, 180 F.3d 115,
125-26 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we hold that Currie is not
entitled to relief on the basis of deficient notice of predicate
convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1).
Appellate counsel also questions whether trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (1) adequately
explain the rights Currie was waiving and the potential
mandatory minimum penalty he faced, (2) provide Currie adequate
time to contemplate his guilty plea, and (3) move for a downward
departure based on Currie’s learning disabilities. Claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct
appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness appears conclusively on
the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006). Currie’s claim is not ripe for review because the
record contains no conclusive evidence that counsel was
ineffective. Furthermore, 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 Currie, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Currie requests that a
3
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 Currie. 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
4