United States v. Wright , 71 F. App'x 245 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH CONWAY WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-01-1019)
Submitted: July 18, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Conway Wright pleaded guilty to one count of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).
He was sentenced to 112 months in prison. Wright appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two claims but stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Wright has filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
Wright, a convicted felon, entered a store carrying a gun.
Wright admits that he “showed” the gun to a store employee who
confronted him. In South Carolina, pointing or presenting a firearm
at another person is a felony punishable by five years in prison.
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-410 (2003).
Our review of the record discloses full compliance with Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11. Further, the four-level enhancement under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2002) was proper, in
light of Wright’s violation of § 16-23-410. Finally, because
ineffective assistance of counsel is not apparent on the face of
the record, Wright should raise this claim, if at all, in a motion
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), rather than on direct
appeal. See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th
Cir. 1999).
We therefore affirm. As required by Anders, we have reviewed
the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
2
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 Wright requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel
may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that counsel served a copy of the motion on
Wright. 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
3