Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyron LEIGH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4122.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 14, 2002.
    Decided: Dec. 3, 2002.
    Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Richard As-cik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tyron Leigh appeals his conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). Leigh’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising an Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), claim but representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Leigh has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding the issue raised by counsel is without merit and discerning no other error in the record below, we affirm.

Leigh contends his sentence is unconstitutional based on Apprendi. Because Leigh’s sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum of 240 months set forth in § 841, Apprendi is not implicated. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-202 (4th Cir.2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001); United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 309, 151 L.Ed.2d 230 (2001).

In his pro se supplemental brief, Leigh contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and sentencing. Because the record does not conclusively establish Leigh’s counsel was ineffective, this claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and must be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999). We have reviewed the remaining claims made in Leigh’s pro se supplemental brief and find them meritless.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Leigh’s conviction and 240-month sentence. We also deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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, then counsel may move 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.