Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Michael WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-04
Citations: 24 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 01-4345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Michael WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 24
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Michael WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4345.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 14, 2001.
Decided Dec. 4, 2001.
John G. Lafratta, Cowan, North & LaFratta, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, for appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Matthew W. Hoffman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Christopher Michael Watkins of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no error, we affirm.
On direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a "verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In the present case, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine that Watkins possessed a firearm and threw it while being pursued by the police.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only when the ineffectiveness "conclusively appears" on the record. United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 651 (4th Cir.1995). Otherwise, such claims should be raised in the district court in a post-conviction proceeding rather than in this court by direct appeal. Id. In the present case, there is nothing in the record that clearly shows that counsel was deficient for failing to move for a downward departure, given Watkins' extensive criminal history. In addition, because the record does not show that a juror was sleeping during Watkins' trial, counsel was not clearly deficient for not raising an objection.
Accordingly, we affirm Watkins' conviction and sentence. 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.