Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick James ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4633

Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. William D. Auman, AUMAN LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Derrick James Allison pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. Allison noted a timely appeal. Counsel for Allison has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Allison received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a motion to suppress. Neither Allison nor the Government has filed a brief. We affirm.

“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised on direct appeal only where the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. Otherwise, the proper avenue for such claim is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ (2012) ] motion filed with the district court.” United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). We find that ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the record.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 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 Allison, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Allison 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 Allison. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard