UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4501
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LINWOOD CLIFTON WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00036-D-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013
Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Linwood Clifton Wood appeals his convictions after
pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm
as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006), and his sentence of 228 months’ imprisonment. Wood’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether trial counsel was
ineffective. We affirm.
Although Anders counsel suggests that Wood’s trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to correct the court’s
misstatement at sentencing referring to the length of the
narcotics conspiracy, claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal unless the
record clearly demonstrates ineffectiveness. We conclude that
the record does not establish such here. United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is well
settled that a claim of ineffective assistance should be raised
in a 28 U.S.C.[A.] [(West Supp. 2012)] § 2255 motion in the
district court rather than on direct appeal, unless the record
2
conclusively shows ineffective assistance.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We therefore decline to review this claim.
Although Wood did not file a timely pro se
supplemental brief after being advised of his right to do so, he
filed a motion to include a supplemental claim on appeal.
Although we grant Wood’s motion, we conclude that his argument
is without merit. Wood asserts that he was erroneously
classified as a career offender. Our review of the record
proves otherwise.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Wood, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Wood 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
Wood.
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