Case ID: f-appx_113/html/0504-01.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. Ronnell KING, a/k/a Life, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03—4397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 9, 2004.
    Decided: Sept. 15, 2004.
    David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ronnell King was convicted by a jury of carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2119 (2000), possession of a firearm in relation to a carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) (2000), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(8) and 924(a) (2000). The district court sentenced King to 235 months in prison. King timely appealed.

King’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) raising three issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on the carjacking charges; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on the felon in possession charge; and (3) whether the district court erred in its sentencing calculation relative to the felon in possession charge. King has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising various additional issues. King has also filed a motion to strike the Anders brief submitted by counsel and a motion for appointment of new counsel. The Government has elected not to file a brief.

We have reviewed the issues presented by Anders counsel as well as the issues presented by King in his pro se supplemental brief and accompanying motions and conclude they are without merit. Construing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Government, we find it sufficient to support King’s jury convictions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). We also find King was properly sentenced. As for King’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the record on appeal does not conclusively show ineffective assistance, those claims should be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action, not on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm King’s convictions and sentence. We further deny King’s motion to strike the Anders brief and deny his motion for appointment of new counsel. 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 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 
      
      . Counsel for King has filed a motion seeking permission to file a supplemental brief and joint appendix so as to challenge certain aspects of his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The motion is hereby granted, and the motion to file supplemental briefs is deemed to provide the supplemental argument regarding the effects of Blakely. After consideration of the order issued by the en banc court in United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004), we find no error in King’s sentence.