US v. Melissa Elders - Affirmation of Sentence

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 4313 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELISSA R AY ELDE RS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Western District of No rth Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Jud ge. (3:23 - cr - 00257 - MO C - DCK -1) Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Chiege Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Atto rney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STA TES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Melissa Ray Elders pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute quantities of heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The d istrict court sentenced h er to 36 mon ths’ im prisonment. On appeal, Elders’s counsel has filed a brief pursuan t to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Elders’s sentencing counsel re ndered ineffective assistance b y failing to advocate for a probationary sentence. Elders was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm. “[W]e typically review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on collateral review” but will consider “such claims o n direct review where th e ineffectiveness of counsel conclusively appears in the trial record itself.” Un ited States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 331 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the p resent record does not conclusively show that Elders’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we conclude that Elders’s “claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4 th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quo tation marks omitted). In accordance with Anders, we hav e reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Elders, in writ ing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for fu rther review. If Elders requests that a petitio n be

3 filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolou s, 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 Elders. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED