UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4268

FRANCIS BARRY NEWMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-93-68)

Submitted: November 24, 1998

Decided: February 10, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles Robison Allen, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Donald

Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Francis Barry Newman appeals his convictions and sentence for

possession of a firearm by a felon and attempted possession with

intent to distribute cocaine. We affirm.

Newman was indicted for criminal conspiracy and various drug

and firearm charges related to an armed drug trafficking network that

he headed in western Virginia. If convicted by a jury, Newman would

have faced a maximum penalty of four life terms plus seventy years

incarceration. Newman initially pled not guilty.

Newman eventually changed his plea to guilty on two counts of the

indictment: possession of a firearm by a felon and attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The remaining counts were dismissed. At his Fed. R. Cr. P. 11 hearing, Newman testified that he

was in fact guilty of these crimes. In his plea agreement, Newman

agreed that he would accept accountability for fifteen kilograms of

cocaine. Further, he stipulated that there was a sufficient factual basis

to support the allegations to which he pled guilty.

The Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") recommended, inter

alia, a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm during the

drug offense. Newman filed certain objections to the PSR, although

none addressed the firearm enhancement or the drug quantity. His

objections were overruled.

On appeal, Newman contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty plea and sentencing, because his

attorney failed to investigate the amount of drugs for which he was

held responsible, ignored his efforts to prove his innocence on the

firearm charge, and failed to object to the firearm enhancement when

there was no evidence that the firearms were related to his drug

offense. A claim of ineffective assistance is not properly raised on

direct appeal unless the record discloses conclusively that defense

counsel was ineffective. See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866,

871 (4th Cir. 1992). In this case, the plea agreement shows that New-

 2
man agreed that he was responsible for fifteen kilograms of cocaine

and that he admitted the factual basis of his firearm conviction. In

addition, the officer's affidavit and the PSR paint a picture of a drug

conspiracy replete with guns, rendering the firearm enhancement

proper. Therefore, the record does not conclusively show that Newman was denied effective assistance of counsel. Thus, we decline to

address the claim on direct appeal. To the extent that Newman challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea, our review of the record

reveals that such a claim is patently without merit.

We, therefore, affirm Newman's convictions and sentence. 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

 3