US v. Jeffrey Arthur

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00051-MR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998560428].. [10-4700]

Case: 10-4700

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY ALAN ARTHUR,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00051-MR-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2011

Decided:

April 5, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-4700

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

Alan

Arthur

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

manufacture and possess with intent to distribute at least 500
grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.

The

Government moved for a downward departure from the statutory
minimum

of

240

months’

imprisonment.

The

court

granted

the

motion and sentenced Arthur to 180 months’ imprisonment.

On

appeal, Arthur’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Arthur
received ineffective assistance of counsel below.

Arthur was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
did not do so.

The Government declined to file a responsive

brief.
Counsel

asks

us

to

review

whether

Arthur

received

ineffective assistance of counsel because Arthur was allowed to
plead

guilty

punishment.
generally

not

without

fully

understanding

the

potential

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
cognizable

on

direct

appeal,

unless

counsel’s

“ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.”

United

States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).

We

conclude that the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
counsel was ineffective.
668, 687-88 (1984).

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

Accordingly, in order to allow for the
2

Case: 10-4700

Document: 31

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 3

adequate development of the record, Arthur must bring his claim
in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion.

See United

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216-17 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal.
sentence.
writing,

We therefore affirm Arthur’s conviction and

This court requires that counsel inform Arthur, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Arthur 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 Arthur.

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

3