UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4813

ARTIS SANGRIA MCGRAW,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.

Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-02-239)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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

Jerry M. Screen, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan

Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Artis S. McGraw appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury

convicted him of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), carrying a firearm

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000), possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (2000), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2000). McGraw’s counsel filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising denial of the

defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as an issue for the

court’s consideration but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. McGraw filed a pro se brief raising the

denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. This Court authorized

McGraw to file a supplemental brief in which he raised ineffective

assistance of trial counsel as an issue for the court’s consideration. 

This court reviews the district court’s decision to deny a motion for

judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d

134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). Where, as here, the motion is based on sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is not whether the court

is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether

the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Stewart, 256

F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir.) (citing United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,

862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1049 (2001),

and cert. denied, 535 U.S. 977 (2002). If substantial evidence exists

to support a verdict, the verdict must be sustained. Glasser, 315 U.S.

at 80. We find sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s

verdict and therefore find no reversible error in the court’s denial of

McGraw’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised by

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) in the district court and not on

direct appeal, unless it "conclusively appears" from the record that

2 UNITED STATES v. MCGRAW
defense counsel did not provide effective representation. United

States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 590 (4th Cir. 1995). In the present

case, the record on appeal does not conclusively demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we decline to address this issue.

McGraw may assert the claim in a § 2255 habeas motion, if he so

chooses. 

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and find

no meritorious issues. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this

time. 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

renew his motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We deny McGraw’s motion for substitute counsel. 

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. MCGRAW 3