# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 21, 2009 · 308 F. App'x 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1027703

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Michael BROWN, A/K/A Solo, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 21, 2009
- **Citations:** 308 F. App'x 711
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, Shedd, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1027703

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1027703. Public record. Not legal advice.