Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0343-01.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. Tommy Ray MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided June 12, 2001.
    
      Tommy Ray Moore, pro se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tommy Ray Moore appeals his conviction entered on his guilty plea to his role in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). In his brief on appeal, Moore suggests that counsel failed to provide constitutionally sufficient assistance during sentencing. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Moore also contends that the district court erred in failing to make the required findings under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1) with respect to the quantity of marijuana used as relevant conduct to determine Moore’s sentence. Because we find Moore’s assignments of error to be without merit, we affirm Moore’s conviction and sentence.

With respect to Moore’s claim that his counsel did not provide him with constitutionally adequate assistance during sentencing, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, such a claim is only appropriate for direct appeal where counsel’s ineffectiveness is apparent from the face of the record. See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir.1992). Because there is no error of this magnitude discernible from the record, we note that Moore’s allegations are better suited for a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir.1991). In addition, we find that the district court fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 32(c)(1) by expressly adopting the findings of the presentence report. See United States v. Walker, 29 F.3d 908, 911 (4th Cir.1994).

Moore’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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.