UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAMMY GAIL CUMMINGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-02-72-FO)

Submitted: November 18, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005

 

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

James D. Williams, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. WILLIAMS, JR.,

P.A., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Pammy Gail Cummings appeals her sentence of 360 months of

imprisonment imposed after she pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess

with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000), and one count of

possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime

punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The Government has moved to dismiss

Cummings’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in her

plea agreement.

We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. We conclude,

however, that Cummings waived the right to proceed with each of her

claims on appeal, except her claims of denial of counsel of her

choosing and ineffective assistance of counsel. Cummings asserts

that her counsel withdrew from representation as a result of

pressure exerted by the Government. The Government sought to

disqualify counsel based upon a possible conflict of interest.

Before the issue was squarely raised before the district court,

however, counsel withdrew and another attorney assumed the

representation. Although a criminal defendant is entitled to be

represented by counsel of her choice, that right is not absolute,

and may be overcome by a conflict of interest. United States v.

Howard, 115 F.3d 1151, 1155 (4th Cir. 1997). Our review of the
- 3 -

record leads us to conclude that the Government’s actions were not

improper, and Cummings’s claim is without merit.

Cummings also asserts that counsel was ineffective in

failing to raise a Sixth Amendment objection at sentencing. We

have reviewed Cummings’s claim and determine that it does not

“conclusively appear[]” on the record that counsel was ineffective.

United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Cummings may raise her

ineffective assistance claim in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Cummings’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Cummings, in writing, of

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Cummings 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 Cummings. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART

AND AFFIRMED IN PART