**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4856** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ALEXANDER ROLAND FRAZIER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for t he District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00906

- SB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 7, 2011 Decided: April 22, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS , and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opi nion
. J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM:
A lexander Roland Frazier, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The distr ict court sentenced Frazier to eighty

- four months of imprisonment , and he now appeals. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whethe r the sente nce was reasonable. Frazier has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel . Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel first questions whether the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum p ossible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id. ; United
States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991 ). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the plea of3 guilt y is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United
States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).
Because Frazier did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [ Frazier ] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his s ubstantial rights.” United
States v. Muhammad , 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Frazier satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error remains within our discretion, which we should not exercise

. . . unless the error seriously affect[s ] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation m arks and citation omitted). Our review of the record reveals substantial compliance with Rule 11. We therefore conclude that Frazier pleaded guilty knowing ly and voluntarily. Counsel next questions whether the sentence is reasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton , 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly4 calculating) the G uidelines range, treating the G uidelines as mandatory , failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51
. We then “‘consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United
States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008 ) (quoting Gall , 552 U.S. at 51). If the sentence is within the G uidelines
range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 346

- 59 (2007) ( permitting presumption of reasonableness for within

- G uidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district c ourt properly calculated the advisory G uidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, responded to Frazier’s arguments at sentencing, and thoroughly explained its chosen
sentence. See United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4 th Cir . 2009) (district court must conduct individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of e ach case , whether
sentence is above, below, or within the G uidelines range). Moreover, Frazier cannot overcome the presumption of reasonableness we accord his within

- G uidelines sentence.5 In his pro se supplemental brief, Frazier argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a
G uidelines enhancement despite Frazier’s request that counsel so object. To prove a claim of ineffective as sistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the defendan t must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689. Under the second prong of the test in the con text of a conviction following a guilty plea, a defendant can show prejudice only by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). We will address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United States v. Baldovinos , 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Upon review, we conclude th at ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the face of the record , and therefore we decline to address this claim on direct appeal.6 We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritoriou s issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Frazier, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Frazier requests that a
p etition 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 Frazier. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED