United States of America v.  Alfred Washington, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4417 
ALFRED WASHINGTON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-378)
Submitted: December 12, 2001
Decided: January 24, 2002
Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greens-
boro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Washington, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order
imposing a twenty-four month imprisonment term upon his convic-
tion for possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic restraining
order, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2) (West 1994 & Supp.
2001). Washington’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the length of Wash-
ington’s sentence, but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Washington filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the
length of his sentence and contending that counsel’s representation
was inadequate.
The district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Washington’s guilty plea, and nothing in the record calls
into question the voluntariness of the plea. In addition, Washington’s
sentence was within the applicable guidelines range, so it is not
reviewable. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 (2000);
United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally,
because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel was
ineffective, this claim is not properly raised on direct appeal. United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Our review of
the record and appellate briefs in accordance with Anders reveals no
other potentially meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm Washing-
ton’s convictions and sentence.
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and require that counsel
inform Washington, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Washington 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 with-
draw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Washington.
2 UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON

-- 2 of 3 --

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3 UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON

-- 3 of 3 --