The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Solo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-18)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janna D. Allison, JANNA D. ALLISON, PLLC, Waynesville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Michael Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, and
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 851 (2006). The
district court sentenced Brown as a career offender to a
262-month sentence, the bottom of the advisory sentencing
guideline range. Brown’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that
counsel, who represented Brown in the district court, provided
ineffective assistance. Appellate counsel states, however,
that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Appellate counsel asserts that counsel below provided
ineffective assistance by failing to inform Brown that he was
subject to a twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence and could be
sentenced as a career offender. This court, however, “may
address [claims of ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only
if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the
record.” United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006). We find that Brown has failed to meet this high
standard and, therefore, decline to review this claim on direct
appeal.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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