Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05247/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony McQueen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 

No. 06-5247 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

versus 

ANTHONY MCQUEEN, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hi 1 ton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00257) 

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Alan H. Yamamoto, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick Friel Stokes, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 06-5247 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 1 of 4
PER CURIAM: 

Anthony McQueen appeals from the judgment imposed after 

this court vacated his sentence for being a felon in possession of 

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and remanded 

for sentencing with application of the Armed Career Criminal Act. 

McQueen's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McQueen has filed a pro se 

informal brief. The Government has declined to filed a brief. 

McQueen argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to raise relevant legal precedent related to the motion to 

suppress, failing to demonstrate a strong command of the facts of 

the case to rebut the Government's statement of facts, failing to 

strongly argue to the district court that the Government failed to 

produce 911 tapes of the caller reporting McQueen's vehicle, and 

failing to argue that the district court's decision regarding a 

subpoena was arbi trary and capricious. McQueen also raises 

ineffective assistance of counsel related to appellate counsel in 

failing to request a rehearing en banc on the appeal issues, 

failing to raise on appeal that the motion to suppress should have 

been denied based upon illegal seizure and detainment, and failing 

to raise issues he wanted the Supreme Court to review on petition 

for writ of certiorari. 

McQueen has waived review of the trial ineffective 

assistance issues because these could have been raised on direct 

- 2 ­

Appeal: 06-5247 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 2 of 4
appeal from the original conviction and sentence. McQueen's issues 

related to appellate counsel in the original appeal and petition 

for certiorari are unrelated to the order appealed from-the 

district court's judgment entering the new sentence. In any event, 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not 

cognizable on direct appeal. See 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. § 2255 (2000) motion. See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 

F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994) An exception exists when the record 

conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. 

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 

295. To the extent that McQueen's claims are properly raised, the 

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance. See 

Richardson, 195 F.3d at 198. 

McQueen has filed a pro se informal brief raising the 

following issues: trial and appellate counsel failed to raise 

issues related to the dispatch call regarding suspicious vehicle; 

trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to object 

to or raise on appeal the improper introduction of other crimes 

evidence; trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing 

to object to or raise on appeal the testimony of three Government 

witnesses, and the district court abused its discretion in 

permi tting the testimony; and trial and appellate counsel were 

- 3 ­

Appeal: 06-5247 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 3 of 4
ineffective by failing to object or raise on appeal the district 

court's error in denying his motion to examine the jury list. 

Again, as to the trial claims, these claims were waived when not 

raised in the first direct appeal. The claims regarding appellate 

counsel are unrelated to the appeal at hand, and the record does 

not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm McQueen's sentence. We grant 

McQueen's motion to file an amended supplemental brief and deny his 

motion to substitute counsel. We further deny McQueen's 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, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion 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 

- 4 ­

Appeal: 06-5247 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 4 of 4