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

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **4905**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER SAVOY , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the M iddle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D
. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1 : 08

- c r - 00 2 7 2

- TDS

- 3 )

Submitted : Ju ly 2 7 , 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON a nd K EENAN , Circuit Judges
.
Affirme d by un p ublished per curiam opinion
.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM :
Mat t hew Christopher Savoy pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a) (2006), and two counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of vi olence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A) (ii), (iii) , (c)(i) (2006)
. He was sentenced to sixty

- three months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction, a mandatory consecutive ten

- year term on the first § 924(c) conviction and a mandatory conse cutive twenty

- five

- year term on the second § 924(c) conviction, for a total of 483 months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Savoy filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for ap peal, but asks the court to review whether counsel below was ineffective
. Specifically, he asserts that counsel was untruthful , improperly allow ed Savoy to plead guilty and be sentenced on two § 924(c)
counts , and fail ed to obtain a sentence reduction for Savoy. Although informed of his right to do so, Savoy has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. W e affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistan ce. United States v. James , 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 2003) ; United States v. Richardson , 1953 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999)
. To allow for adequate development of the record, generally claims of ineffective assistance should be brought in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997)
. After reviewing the record, we find that it does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance. Therefore, Savoy’s claims of ineffective assistance are not

co gnizable on direct appeal
. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Savoy , in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Savoy requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Savoy
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED