UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODNEY H. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Simon  No. 03-4148 Andrew Conrad, a/k/a Siothan

Andrew Connor, a/k/a Rod

Williams, a/k/a Kenneth Gary

Williams,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-01-231)

Submitted: July 8, 2003

Decided: July 29, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Charles R. Burke, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen

Westley Haynie, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Rodney H. Williams was convicted by a jury of twelve counts of

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2000), two counts of

identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7), 2 (2000), and

one count of false use of a social security number in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2000), 18 U.S.C. § 2. Williams’ attorney has

filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief and a motion

to withdraw, raising several issues at the request of Williams, but concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams has filed

a pro se supplemental brief, augmenting his attorney’s claims and

raising new claims. He also moves for appointment of new appellate

counsel and general relief. After an independent review of the record,

we affirm. 

We find the indictment was not defective. The prosecutor was not

obligated to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. United

States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 45-46 (1992). In addition, Williams

cannot show he was prejudiced by any alleged false testimony presented to the grand jury. United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 485-87

(4th Cir. 1993). We further find no evidence of alleged prosecutorial

misconduct. In addition, we find no evidence of judicial misconduct.

Nor do we find that the district court judge should have recused himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) (2000); United States v. Nobel, 696

F.2d 231, 233-34 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ravich, 421 F.2d

1196, 1205-06 (2d Cir. 1970). Furthermore, the district court properly

denied the motion to strike certain portions of the indictment for

improper venue. This issue was decided in Williams’ co-defendant’s

appeal. See United States v. Janes, 2003 WL 21267842 (4th Cir. June

3, 2003) (No. 02-4866) (unpublished). In addition, there was no error

in the determination of the offense level. United States v. Miller, 316

F.3d 495, 502 (4th Cir. 2003). 

2 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
We have reviewed the issues raised in Williams’ pro se supplemental brief and find them without merit. There was sufficient evidence

to support the convictions. The sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice and being an organizer or supervisor were proper. In

addition, the criminal history category was properly determined. Williams’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable on

direct review. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.

1997); United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). 

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

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ convictions 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. Thus, we deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw and Williams’ motion to appoint appellate counsel. If Williams requests that a petition for certiorari be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may renew his motion. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Williams. We also deny Williams’ motion

for general relief seeking review of this court’s decision in his codefendants’ appeal. 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. WILLIAMS 3