US v. Richard Wright

Filing 920090622

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH)

Submitted:

May 29, 2009

Decided:

June 22, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Debra Y. Chapman, DEBRA Y. CHAPMAN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Richard Wright pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and two counts of

possession with intent to distribute and distribution of crack, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). district court sentenced Wright to concurrent terms of The 168

months in prison.

Wright appeals.

Wright's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. however, counsel. assistance] whether This on Wright court was "may denied address Counsel questions, assistance of the of

effective [claims if

ineffective lawyer's United We and

direct

appeal

only

ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record."

States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). find that Wright has failed to meet this high standard

therefore decline to review this claim on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We have reviewed the claims in Wright's supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.

pro

se

2

We therefore affirm Wright's convictions and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Wright, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wright 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 Wright. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3