# United States v. Brown > Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 31, 1996 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/989356 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Decided:** May 31, 1996 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator.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 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/989356 ## Opinion text UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5781 CECIL C. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.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 _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/989356. Public record. Not legal advice.