The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4155
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND BROWN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00155-JFA-6)
Submitted: April 28, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glen D. Nager, Jennifer L. Swize, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney,
Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Raymond Brown, III, pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, five kilograms
or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Brown to
121 months’ imprisonment. Brown timely appealed.
Brown’s sole argument on appeal is that he was denied
effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney
failed to object to the assessment of three criminal history
points based on his September 2004 juvenile adjudications for
trespassing and disturbing schools. Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable on direct
appeal. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.
1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record,
a defendant must bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion. See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d
415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists where the record
conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States
v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d
at 295. Our review of the record reveals that it does not
conclusively show that counsel was ineffective. We therefore
decline to consider this argument on appeal.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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