UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ROY WOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00021-LHT-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Litka, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY LITKA, LLC, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellant. Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wood pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). The district court 

sentenced Wood to 180 months of imprisonment and Wood now 

appeals. His appellate attorney has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether

Wood’s trial counsel provided effective assistance, but stating 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although Wood 

was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, 

he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

To prove a claim of ineffective assistance 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 defendant 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 context 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).
3

Furthermore, this court may 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). We 

have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that 

ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the 

record. We therefore decline to address this claim on direct 

appeal.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Wood, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Wood 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 Wood. 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