United States v. Carter , 53 F. App'x 683 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 02-4469
    WOODY ALEXANDER CARTER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
    (CR-01-40)
    Submitted: November 26, 2002
    Decided: December 17, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Andrew B. Banzhoff, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. CARTER
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Woody Alexander Carter appeals his convictions and sentence of
    consecutive terms of thirty-three and eighty-four months’ imprison-
    ment for assault with a firearm during a bank robbery, aiding and
    abetting, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2
    , 2113(d) (2000), and brandish-
    ing a firearm during a bank robbery, aiding and abetting, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2
    , 924(c)(1) (2000). Carter’s attorney has filed a brief
    in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), argu-
    ing that Carter may have received ineffective assistance of counsel or
    prosecutorial misconduct, but stating that, in his view, there are no
    meritorious grounds for appeal. Advised of his right to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, Carter has not done so. Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm.
    Carter argues his counsel was ineffective. Claims of ineffective
    assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal
    unless the trial record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance
    of counsel. See United States v. King, 
    119 F.3d 290
    , 295 (4th Cir.
    1997). To allow for adequate development of the record, ineffective
    assistance of counsel claims generally should be pursued in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) proceeding. See United States v. Hoyle, 
    33 F.3d 415
    , 418 (4th Cir. 1994). Because review of the record in this appeal
    does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, we
    conclude Carter’s claim should be brought, if at all, in a § 2255 pro-
    ceeding, not on direct appeal. Carter makes no specific allegation of
    prosecutorial misconduct, and none is apparent in the record on
    appeal.
    As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
    find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s
    convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his
    client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
    United States for further review. If the client 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 repre-
    sentation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served
    on the client.
    UNITED STATES v. CARTER                      3
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4469

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 683

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/17/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024