UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4938
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON MARQUIS MCPHERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00814-RMG-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Marquis McPherson pled guilty to six counts of
his indictment: Count 1, possession with intent to distribute
marijuana and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006); Count 2, possession of firearms and ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006);
Count 3, possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006); Count 4, use and carry of a firearm in
the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006); Count 5, possession with intent to
distribute marijuana and cocaine; and Count 6, possession of a
firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. McPherson was
sentenced to a total of 117 months’ imprisonment, 57 months for
Counts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and 60 months, consecutive, for Count
4.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted McPherson’s guilty plea to Count 1;
(2) whether McPherson’s sentence was procedurally and
substantively reasonable; (3) whether the district court erred
by denying McPherson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and
2
(4) whether defense counsel was ineffective. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
First, we find no reversible error in the district
court’s Rule 11 colloquy for Count 1. United States v. Goins,
51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting harmless error review
standard for asserted Rule 11 errors). Second, we find that
McPherson’s sentence was procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The court imposed the sentence after careful
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and the
sentence was within the properly calculated advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49
(2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.
2009).
Next, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to deny McPherson’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th
Cir. 2000) (stating review standard). A defendant bears the
burden of demonstrating to the district court’s satisfaction
that a “fair and just reason” supports his request to withdraw.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).
Finally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record
conclusively establishes that defense counsel did not provide
effective representation. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
3
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d
582, 590 (4th Cir. 1994). McPherson has failed to meet this
demanding burden. To allow for adequate development of the
record, claims of ineffective assistance generally should be
brought, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d at 590.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm McPherson’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform McPherson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If McPherson 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 McPherson. 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