UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4847

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW EUGENE BARRENTINE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:09-cr-00953-RBH-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 14, 2011

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH, 

JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann 

Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Eugene Barrentine pleaded guilty, pursuant to 

a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a 

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) 

(2006). The district court sentenced Barrentine as an armed 

career criminal to the statutory mandatory minimum term of 

imprisonment of 180 months.

On appeal, Barrentine’s counsel filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states 

that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel does 

call two issues to our attention: (1) whether the district 

court fully complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in 

taking Barrentine’s guilty plea; and (2) whether Barrentine’s 

sentence was unreasonable. Barrentine, through a letter, raises 

the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government 

chose not to file a response.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Barrentine has no valid claims to relief. Because Barrentine

did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, 

the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). “To 

establish plain error, [Barrentine] must show that an error 

occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected 

his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 
3

247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Barrentine satisfies these 

requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the 

court’s] discretion, which [the court] should not exercise . . . 

unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court failed to question Barrentine as to 

whether he understood the warning that any false answers while 

under oath may be used against him in a future prosecution for 

perjury and failed to inform Barrentine of his right to 

appointed counsel and to have counsel present at every stage of 

the proceeding. These errors do not rise to the level of plain 

error in this case because the record does not evidence a 

reasonable probability that, but for the errors, Barrentine 

would not have entered his plea of guilty. United States v. 

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).

We review a district court’s imposition of a sentence 

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court 

imposed a sentence at the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment 

provided by statute. It had no discretion to sentence 

Barrentine to a lesser term. United States v. Robinson, 404 

F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Such a sentence is per se 
4

reasonable and cannot be error. United States v. Farrior, 535 

F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).

Finally, we decline to consider on direct appeal 

Barrentine’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective 

representation. To allow for adequate development of the 

record, ineffective assistance of counsel claims must ordinarily 

by pursued in appropriate post-conviction proceedings. See

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Because ineffective assistance of counsel is not conclusively 

established by the present record, Barrentine must pursue this 

claim on collateral attack.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Barrentine’s conviction and sentence. We 

deny Barrentine’s motion to extend time to file a pro se 

supplemental brief. This court requires that counsel inform 

Barrentine, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Barrentine 

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 Barrentine.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
5

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED