
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Dean THURLOW, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Dean Thurlow, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Dean Thurlow, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 12-4366, 12-4367, 12-4372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 15, 2013.
    Decided: March 21, 2013.
    
      Jorgelina E. Araneda, Araneda Law Firm, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Dean Thurlow appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement to two counts of carrying and using by brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). Thurlow contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his counsel advised him to plead guilty. We affirm.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record clearly demonstrates ineffectiveness. United 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. § 2255 motion in the district court rather than on direct appeal, unless the record conclusively shows ineffective assistance.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). After review of the record, we conclude that Thurlow has not conclusively shown that his counsel was ineffective.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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. 
      
       In light of this decision, Thurlow's challenge to the imposition of two supervised release revocation sentences also fails.
     