The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 95-5781
CECIL C. BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-48)
Submitted: May 16, 1996
Decided: May 31, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Richard A. Davis, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Bar-
rett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Cecil C. Brown appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty
plea on a charge of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1)(B) (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). Brown's attor-
ney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there were no meritorious grounds
for appeal. Brown was notified of his right to file a pro se brief, which
he did, claiming: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) that he was
mentally impaired; (3) that the district court failed to take into consid-
eration his role in the offense; and (4) that his plea was involuntary.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find
that Brown's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly
raised on direct appeal because it does not "conclusively" appear from
the record that defense counsel failed to provide Brown with effective
representation. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21
(4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 997 (1992); United States v.
Fisher, 477 F.2d 300, 302 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Mandello,
426 F.2d 1021, 1023 (4th Cir. 1970). In addition, we find that the dis-
trict court complied fully with all of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11, fully informing Brown of his rights and the consequences of
a guilty plea; further, Brown was competent to enter the plea. Brown
has shown no clear and convincing evidence to support reconsidera-
tion of his plea. See Little v. Allsbrook, 731 F.2d 238, 239-40 n.2 (4th
Cir. 1984). Finally, we find that the additional issues Brown raised in
his supplemental brief to be without merit.
We deny without prejudice counsel's motion to withdraw at this
stage of the proceedings. 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 rep-
resentation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was
served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3