UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONNELL KING, a/k/a Life,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-02-47)

Submitted: April 9, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Betts, Columbia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ronnell King was convicted by a jury of

carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2119 (2000), possession of a firearm

in relation to a carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

(2000), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(8) and 924(a) (2000). The district court

sentenced King to 235 months in prison. King timely appealed.

King’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) raising three issues:

(1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on the

carjacking charges; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to

convict on the felon in possession charge; and (3) whether the

district court erred in its sentencing calculation relative to the

felon in possession charge. King has filed a pro se supplemental

brief raising various additional issues. King has also filed a

motion to strike the Anders brief submitted by counsel and a motion

for appointment of new counsel. The Government has elected not to

file a brief. 

We have reviewed the issues presented by Anders counsel

as well as the issues presented by King in his pro se supplemental

brief and accompanying motions and conclude they are without merit.

Construing the evidence presented at trial in the light most

favorable to the Government, we find it sufficient to support

King’s jury convictions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
1 Counsel for King has filed a motion seeking permission to

file a supplemental brief and joint appendix so as to challenge

certain aspects of his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.

Ct. 2531 (2004). The motion is hereby granted, and the motion to

file supplemental briefs is deemed to provide the supplemental

argument regarding the effects of Blakely. After consideration of

the order issued by the en banc court in United States v. Hammoud,

No. 03-4253 (4th Cir. August 2, 2004), we find no error in King’s

sentence.

- 3 -

60, 80 (1942). We also find King was properly sentenced. As for

King’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the

record on appeal does not conclusively show ineffective assistance,

those claims should be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

action, not on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d

290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). 

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this

case in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues

for appeal. We therefore affirm King’s convictions and sentence.1

We further deny King’s motion to strike the Anders brief and deny

his motion for appointment of new counsel. 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
- 4 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED