UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IAN FITZGERALD MCKELLAR, a/k/a Dee,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-05-181)

Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Acting

United States Attorney, Stanley D. Ragsdale, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ian Fitzgerald McKellar appeals his conviction and

sentence following a guilty plea to use of a telephone to

facilitate the commission of a felony under the Controlled

Substances Act, the possession with intent to distribute and

distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2000).

McKellar’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his

opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as

potential issues whether the district court erred in denying

McKellar’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and whether the

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. McKellar filed

a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.

A defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty plea before

sentencing must demonstrate a “fair and just reason” for withdrawal

of the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A “fair and just”

reason is one that essentially “challenges the fairness of the Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding” or “challenges the fulfillment of a

promise or condition emanating from the proceeding.” United

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

should closely scrutinize the Rule 11 colloquy and attach a strong

presumption that the plea is final and binding if the Rule 11

proceeding is adequate. Id. We review the district court’s denial
- 3 -

of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). After

reviewing the record, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion by finding no fair and just reason for the

withdrawal of McKellar’s guilty plea.

We note counsel also raises the issue of whether the

district court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error

in the Rule 11 proceeding and concludes that there was full

compliance with the Rule. Our review of the record similarly

discloses full compliance.

Next, we find McKellar’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claims raised in his pro se supplemental brief are not

properly raised on direct appeal. Claims of ineffective assistance

are not cognizable on direct appeal unless conclusively established

on the record. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th

Cir. 1999). To allow for adequate development of the record,

claims of ineffective assistance generally should be brought in a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d

290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). We find no evidence in the record

conclusively establishing trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.

With regard to the remaining issues raised in McKellar’s

pro se supplemental brief, we find his claims to be without merit.

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

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
- 4 -

therefore affirm McKellar’s conviction and sentence. 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 the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED