UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4774
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS EARL BIGGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00149-RJC-1)
Submitted: May 15, 2013 Decided: May 22, 2013
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Carpenter, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW & SAENGER, PA,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Earl Biggers pleaded guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was
sentenced to 115 months’ imprisonment. Biggers appeals his
sentence, asserting that counsel was ineffective in failing to
object to the four-level sentencing enhancement imposed pursuant
to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2011). We
affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally
are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. King, 119
F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant generally must bring his
claims in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. Id.;
United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An
exception exists when the record conclusively establishes
ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. Upon review of
the record, we conclude that it does not conclusively show that
Biggers’ counsel was ineffective, and we therefore decline to
consider this issue on direct appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3