Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul C. GORDON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 21, 2001.
    Decided June 28, 2001.
    
      Paul C. Gordon, pro se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Paul Gordon, sentenced in 1993 for conspiring to distribute over 300 grams of cocaine base, seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000). On appeal, Gordon contends the district court erred in dismissing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel’s failure to raise an objection to the amount of cocaine base attributable to Gordon. However, because Gordon does not challenge the determination in his presentence report that he was responsible for conspiring to distribute at least 208 grams of cocaine base prior to June 1992, and Gordon’s sentence was predicated on his distribution of at least 150 grams of cocaine, see United, States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(c)(3) (2000), Gordon cannot demonstrate prejudice as a result of his attorney’s failure to raise this objection at sentencing, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (requiring both deficient performance and resulting prejudice in order to sustain an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss Gordon’s appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Although Gordon’s appeal was not received until two years after the denial of his § 2255 motion, we assume without deciding that Gordon timely mailed notice of his appeal on January 12, 1999 as he claims.