UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4175

JAVORICK ALEXANDER MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-330)

Submitted: November 28, 2001

Decided: December 17, 2001

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Paul M. James, III, STOWERS & JAMES, P.A., Winston-Salem,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States

Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Javorick Alexander Moore appeals his conviction and sentence

imposed pursuant to a guilty plea to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2113(d) (West 2001), use of and brandishing a firearm in a crime

of violence, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (West 2001), and aiding

and abetting in those crimes, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 2001). Moore’s

counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), raising three issues but representing that, in his view,

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Moore has filed a pro se

supplemental brief asserting two additional issues. Finding the issues

raised are without merit and discerning no other error in the record

below, we affirm. 

Counsel first contends Moore’s plea was invalid because, during

the plea hearing, the district court failed to explain to Moore that if

he were to proceed to trial, he had the right not to be compelled to

incriminate himself. However, this was explained in Moore’s plea

agreement, which was signed by both Moore and counsel. Thus, we

find any error by the district court was harmless and that the plea was

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11(h); United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995).

Counsel next contends the district court erred by accepting

Moore’s plea of guilty to carrying and using a firearm under § 924(c).

Counsel contends there was an insufficient factual basis to support

Moore’s conviction on this count. We find this argument to be without merit. 

Counsel next contends the district court erred by sentencing Moore

to eighty-four months of imprisonment under § 924(c), to be served

consecutively to his sentence under § 2113(d). However, Moore was

subject to a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence under

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

2 UNITED STATES v. MOORE
In his pro se supplemental brief, Moore argues the district court

erred by considering three prior, uncounseled convictions when determining his criminal history. Because Moore did not raise this claim

below, this court’s review is for plain error. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). To constitute plain error, the

defendant must show the error occurred, the error was plain, and that

the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Hastings, 134

F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998). Even if there is plain error, this court

will not recognize the error unless it seriously affects the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. We find no

error affecting Moore’s substantial rights. 

Finally, Moore contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct

appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness plainly appears on the face of

the record. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir.

1991). We decline to consider Moore’s ineffective assistance claims

because we find the record does not conclusively show counsel was

ineffective. 

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Moore’s conviction

and sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

UNITED STATES v. MOORE 3