US v. Rodney M. Searcy
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY MICHAEL SEARCY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00091)
Submitted: May 22, 2008
May 27, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew C. Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Rodney Michael Searcy pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 70 months in prison. On appeal, Searcy's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the claim that Searcy received ineffective assistance of counsel. Although informed of
his right to do so, Searcy has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After reviewing the entire record for any meritorious
claims, we affirm. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes ineffective assistance. 195 F.3d 192, of 198 the (4th Cir.
United States v. Richardson, To allow for adequate
generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). that the record does not conclusively establish We find
assistance. Accordingly, we affirm Searcy'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
- 2 -
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on the client.
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?