Booker, and find that any error in the district court’s designation
of McLaurin as a career offender, its imposition of a two-level
enhancement for the use of a minor pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines § 3B1.4 (2003),
or its treatment of the guidelines as
mandatory did not affect McLaurin’s substantial rights. See United
States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that the
armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does
not violate Booker); United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 225 (4th
Cir. 2005) (requiring an appellant to demonstrate actual prejudice
from the application of the mandatory guideline scheme on plain
error review). As required by Anders, we have throughly reviewed
the record for any potential sentencing claims and conclude that
McLaurin is not entitled to relief under Booker.
With regard to the remaining issues raised in McLaurin’s
supplemental brief, we find his claims to be without merit.
Specifically, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not
appropriately raised on direct appeal. See United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Further, although
McLaurin alleges that the Government breached the plea agreement,
he points to no evidence in support of this contention. Finally,
we find that McLaurin’s argument that the indictment was
We find that this enhancement did not impact the total
offense level because the district court found McLaurin to be a
career offender. See United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 523-
24 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 3 -