UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4703

STANLEY STEPHENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CR-99-249)

Submitted: December 28, 2001

Decided: January 22, 2002

Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished

per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

William R. Williams, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A.,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Stanley Stephens appeals his conviction and 262 month sentence

entered upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to possession with intent

to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). 

On appeal, Stephens’ counsel has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Stephens has filed

supplemental pro se briefs as well. First, Stephens and his counsel

argue that his conviction and sentence violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Stephens’ indictment failed to state a drug

quantity. We affirm Stephens’ conviction but vacate his sentence and

remand so that he may be sentenced under 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); United States v. Dinnall, 269 F.3d 418, 423

(4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 152-57 (4th

Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed, Sept. 20, 2001 (No. 01-6398). 

Second, Stephens and his counsel argue the district court abused its

discretion in failing to grant Stephens’ motion to withdraw his guilty

plea. We disagree. Stephens has failed to establish that his plea colloquy was plagued by an error affecting his substantial rights. United

States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v.

Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Third, in Stephens’ supplemental pro se briefs, he asserts he

received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering his guilty plea.

The record does not conclusively establish Stephens received ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, we deny this claim without

prejudice to Stephens’ ability to raise it in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295

(4th Cir. 1997). 

2 UNITED STATES v. STEPHENS
Accordingly, we affirm Stephens’ conviction but vacate and

remand for sentencing within the applicable statutory maximum. In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this

case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED

AND REMANDED IN PART

UNITED STATES v. STEPHENS 3