US v. Linwood Wood, No. 12-4501 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LINWOOD CLIFTON WOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00036-D-1) Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013 Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Linwood Clifton Wood appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base ( crack ), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and his sentence of 228 months imprisonment. Wood s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal ineffective. but was misstatement narcotics whether trial counsel was We affirm. Although counsel questioning Anders ineffective at counsel for sentencing conspiracy, suggests failing referring claims of to to that Wood s correct the the length ineffective trial court s of assistance the of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record clearly demonstrates ineffectiveness. We conclude that the United record does not establish such here. States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) ( [I]t is well settled that a claim of ineffective assistance should be raised in a 28 U.S.C.[A.] [(West Supp. 2012)] § 2255 motion in the district court rather than on direct appeal, unless the record 2 conclusively shows ineffective assistance. ) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore decline to review this claim. Although Wood did not file a timely pro se supplemental brief after being advised of his right to do so, he filed a motion to include a supplemental claim on appeal. Although we grant Wood s motion, we conclude that his argument is without classified merit. as a Wood career asserts offender. that Our he was review erroneously of the record proves otherwise. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. we affirm the district court s judgment. Accordingly, This court requires that counsel inform Wood, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wood 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 Wood. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
