United States v. Bouchard ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGER TODD BOUCHARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00224)
Submitted: May 4, 2007 Decided: May 31, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Todd Bouchard appeals his convictions and sentence
following a guilty plea to possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) (2000), and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).
Bouchard’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but raising as potential issues
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and
whether trial counsel was ineffective. Bouchard filed a pro se
supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
First, counsel raises the issue of whether the district
court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the
Rule 11 proceeding. After a thorough review of the record, we find
the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
Both Bouchard and his present counsel question whether
trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because the record
does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel,
we find the claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding
that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be brought in
a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), unless it
- 2 -
conclusively appears from the face of the record that counsel was
ineffective).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Bouchard’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform her 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
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. 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 -