United States v. Wirsch , 283 F. App'x 159 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN EDWARD WIRSCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00165-JRS-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherri A. Thaxton, SHERRI A. THAXTON, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Peter Sinclair Duffey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Edward Wirsch was convicted by a jury of possession
of a stolen firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2000), and was sentenced
to 70 months imprisonment. Wirsch timely appealed. His attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the evidence was sufficient to support his
conviction. Wirsch has also filed a supplemental pro se brief in
which he claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel
both at trial and on appeal.
We have reviewed the trial testimony and find that the
evidence presented by the government was sufficient to support the
jury’s finding that Wirsch knowingly possessed the stolen firearm
at issue. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)
(providing standard). In making this determination, we do not
“weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses.”
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). Where
the evidence supports differing reasonable interpretations, the
jury decides which interpretation to believe. Id.In his supplemental pro se brief, Wirsch asserts that he
was denied effective assistance of counsel. Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable on direct appeal
unless ineffective assistance conclusively appears on the record.
See United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003).
- 2 -
Wirsch fails to make this showing. Accordingly, we decline to
consider these issues on direct appeal. Should Wirsch wish to do
so, he may pursue these claims in an appropriate motion for
post-conviction relief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Wirsch’s conviction and sentence. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is denied. 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 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 -