UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY HAYMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00180-F-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 17, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Hayman pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 

to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base “crack.” The 

district court sentenced Hayman to 236 months of imprisonment. 

On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, but nominally raising thirteen 

issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

For clarity’s sake, we have consolidated counsel’s 

numerous issues into four categories. First, Hayman questions 

whether there was any error regarding his plea. Because Hayman 

did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, 

we review his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error and 

find none. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th 

Cir. 2002). 

Second, we find no abuse of discretion in Hayman’s 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)

(providing standard). The district court correctly calculated 

Hayman’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as 210-262 months 

and imposed a sentence in the middle of that range. The court 

considered arguments from the parties, heard personally from 

Hayman, and expressly stated that it had considered the factors 

in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) before 
3

imposing the sentence. We presume on appeal that a sentence 

imposed within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range is 

reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th 

Cir. 2008).

Next, we find no ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable 

on direct appeal, unless the record conclusively establishes 

ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 

192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). 

Finally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 

the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

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

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

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

further review. If Hayman 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 Hayman.

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