US v. Richard Wright, No. 07-4813 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 22, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). The district 168 court sentenced months in prison. Wright to concurrent terms of 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, whether counsel. This assistance] on Wright court was may direct Counsel questions, denied effective address [claims appeal only assistance of if ineffective the ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record. lawyer s United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). find that Wright has failed to meet this high of standard We and 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. 2 pro se 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 adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
