US v. Michael Bower

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998608394].. [10-4955]

Appeal: 10-4955

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/09/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CHAD BOWERS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2011

Decided:

June 9, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4955

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/09/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Michael
imposed
stolen

Chad

Bowers

appeals

following

his

guilty

plea

to

conspiracy

of

18

U.S.C.

firearms,

possession

of

in

violation

stolen

firearms,

in

the

327-month

sentence
possess

§ 371

violation

to

(2006);

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2) (2006); and two counts of possession of
a

firearm

by

a

convicted

felon,

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006).

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

Counsel for Bowers filed a

brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S.

738

(1967),

questioning

whether

the

district

court

erred in overruling Bowers’ objections to the Presentence Report
(“PSR”) and whether Bowers received ineffective assistance of
counsel.

Counsel

meritorious

grounds

supplemental brief.

states,
for

however,

appeal.

that
Bowers

he

has

filed

found
a

no

pro

se

We affirm.

Bowers’ objections to the PSR are largely factual in
nature.
addressed

At
and

sentencing,
rejected

the

district

Bowers’

adopted the facts in the PSR.

objections

court
to

individually
the

PSR,

and

This court reviews such factual

determinations for clear error.

United States v. Jenkins, 566

F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009).

We have reviewed the district

court’s rulings as to each of the claims raised and find no
clear error.

2

Appeal: 10-4955

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/09/2011

Page: 3 of 4

Further, Bowers is not entitled to relief on his claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We will address a claim

of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s
ineffectiveness
States

v.

conclusively

appears

Baldovinos,

Otherwise,

434

F.3d

such

are

more

claims

on

233,

the

239

properly

record.

(4th

United

Cir.
in

raised

2006).
motion

a

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010).

Our

review

not

convinces

us

that

ineffective

assistance

does

conclusively appear on the face of this record, and therefore we
decline to address 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 therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Bowers, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Bowers

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Bowers.
We
dispense

affirm

with

oral

the

judgment

argument

of

the

because

3

district

the

facts

court.
and

We
legal

Appeal: 10-4955

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/09/2011

Page: 4 of 4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4