UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KA LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00057-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: March 22, 2016 Decided: March 29, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ka Lee pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, 

to conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute 

500 grams or more of methamphetamine (Count One) and money 

laundering (Count Three), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846 (2012). The court sentenced Lee to 180 

months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Lee 

appeals. 

Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Lee was 

denied effective assistance of counsel and whether the record 

shows prosecutorial misconduct.* Although advised of his right 

to file a supplemental pro se brief, Lee has not done so. We 

affirm. 

Counsel first questions whether Lee was denied effective 

assistance of counsel. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective 

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. 

 * Counsel’s brief also questions the validity of the waiver 

in Lee’s plea agreement. Because the Government does not 

address the enforceability of this waiver and has not moved to 

dismiss the relevant portion of the appeal, we decline to 

enforce the waiver sua sponte. See United States v. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 
3

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

Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit 

sufficient development of the record. United States v. 

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the 

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of 

counsel, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at 

all, in a § 2255 motion. We also find no support in the record 

for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Lee’s conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Lee, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Lee 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 Lee. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED