UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4424

MARK DAVE HILL, a/k/a E, a/k/a

Earl, a/k/a Clarence Buckner,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-00-398)

Submitted: August 28, 2003

Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Pickens, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Mark Dave Hill appeals his conviction and 300-month sentence

after pleading guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). His

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

asserting trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to

object to prior criminal history used to classify Hill as a career

offender; the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement

to Hill’s base offense level for Hill’s role as a leader and organizer

in the conspiracy pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 3B1.1(a) (2000); and the district court erred in sentencing Hill as a

career offender pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1. Hill was notified by his

attorney of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief and has elected

to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

We first address Hill’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not generally cognizable on

direct appeal. See United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1363 (4th Cir.

1996). Unless ineffective assistance of counsel "conclusively appears"

on the record, such claims should be raised collaterally and not on

direct appeal. Id. We find that because ineffectiveness of counsel does

not conclusively appear on the record, Hill’s claims are more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion filed in the

district court. 

Next, we find no merit in Hill’s claim that the district court erred

in finding him to be a leader or organizer in the conspiracy pursuant

to USSG § 3B1.1(a). We review the district court’s determination of

a defendant’s role in the offense for clear error. United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997). We conclude that the sentencing court did not err in adopting the presentence report’s findings

and denying Hill’s arguments relating to the enhancement. 

2 UNITED STATES v. HILL
Finally, we are not persuaded by Hill’s argument that he was

improperly sentenced as a career offender. Since Hill did not object

at sentencing, we review this claim for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P.

52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). We find

that Hill meets all the criteria of USSG § 4B1.1 and was properly sentenced as a career offender. 

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm Hill’s conviction and sentence. We reject the

claims raised in Hill’s pro se supplemental brief as meritless. 

This court requires that counsel inform her 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

UNITED STATES v. HILL 3