Court Opinion

ID: 997829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:02:18.886939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:51.590990
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 98-4412
ALEXANDER SHERMAN MCKENZIE,
a/k/a Alexander Suber,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-97-203)

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Decided: February 8, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas
Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Sherman McKenzie pleaded guilty to bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1994) and the use and carry of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1994). The court sen-
tenced McKenzie to 220 months' imprisonment and a mandatory con-
secutive sentence of five years' imprisonment, respectively. On
appeal, McKenzie alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. However,
counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. McKenzie did not file a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

McKenzie's ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be
raised in the district court by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998), and not on direct appeal, unless it "conclusively
appears" from the record that defense counsel did not provide effec-
tive representation. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-
21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and find that it does
not conclusively show that McKenzie's attorney was ineffective.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm McKen-
zie's conviction and sentence. 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 repre-
sentation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served
on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and
oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2