Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Terray STUDGON, a/k/a Terray Sterns, a/k/a Bryan James, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 03-4700
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Terray STUDGON, a/k/a Terray Sterns, a/k/a Bryan James, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Terray STUDGON, a/k/a Terray Sterns, a/k/a Bryan James, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4700.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Andrew R. Mackenzie, Barrett & Mackenzie, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Larry Studgon pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Studgon was sentenced to fifty-seven months incarceration, three years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. His attorney has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We review this claim to assess whether the record conclusively establishes Studgon's trial counsel was ineffective. We hold the record does not conclusively establish Studgon's trial counsel was ineffective. We deny relief on this claim without prejudice to Studgon's ability to allege ineffective assistance on collateral review. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999); United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Studgon's conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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