US v. Stanley Harrison, No. 10-4903 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4903 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STANLEY E. HARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00478-JFM-5) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen H. Orenberg, THE ORENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C., North Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley E. Harrison pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). He was sentenced at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range to 262 months imprisonment. On appeal, Harrison s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious Harrison issues received for appeal, ineffective but assistance questioning of whether counsel below. Although informed of his right to do so, Harrison has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. file a response. The Government has declined to We affirm. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel s performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. (1984). show v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 With respect to the first prong, the defendant must that standard Strickland counsel s of [j]udicial representation reasonableness. scrutiny deferential. of Id. counsel s fell at below an objective 688. In addition, performance must be highly Id. at 689. We will address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer s ineffectiveness conclusively 2 appears on the record. 233, 239 (4th Cir. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 2006). Otherwise, such claims are more properly raised in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011). Our review convinces us that ineffective assistance conclusively does not 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 Harrison, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harrison requests that a petition be 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 Harrison. 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
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.
