United States v. Hagans ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-5958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESSE LEWIS HAGANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-249-K)
Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: February 16, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse Lewis Hagans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Mason Thomas, Jr.,
Stephen S. Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Green-
belt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Hagans, proceeding pro se, appeals his convictions for
conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1988). Hagans' only
briefed issue in this appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because we find no conclusive appearance of ineffective assistance
from the trial record, we conclude that Hagans must initiate a ha-
beas corpus proceeding in the district court if he wishes to pursue
this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988); see also United States v.
Fisher, 477 F.2d 300, 302 (4th Cir. 1973) (providing exception that
where ineffective representation conclusively appears in trial
record, claim may be raised on direct appeal).
Having disposed of Hagans' ineffective assistance claim, we
reviewed the entire record, including both pre-trial motions and
sentencing, for reversible error. Although not technically before
this Court, we have paid special attention to the errors alleged by
Hagans' counsel before his withdrawal. Our review has revealed no
reversible error. Further, we hold that the evidence supports
Hagans' conviction and that the district court correctly calculated
his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Ac-
cordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the Court, and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2