UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWNETTA BELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:14-cr-00299-TLW-1)

Submitted: December 28, 2015 Decided: February 1, 2016

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David Holliday, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawnetta Belton appeals her conviction and the sentence 

imposed by the district court after she pled guilty to 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),

846 (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but raising potential issues

regarding the validity of Belton’s plea and the sufficiency of 

the court’s explanation of her sentence. Belton has filed a pro 

se supplemental brief asserting several errors in her plea and 

sentence and arguing that trial counsel was ineffective. We 

affirm.

Having reviewed the transcript of Belton’s plea colloquy, 

we conclude that the district court substantially complied with 

the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that any errors in 

the colloquy did not affect her substantial rights. See United 

States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(providing standard). 

With respect to Belton’s sentence, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in adopting the uncontested factual 

allegations of the PSR. See United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 

388, 394 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court may 

summarily adopt information in PSR unless defendant makes 
3

affirmative showing that it is inaccurate). Any error in 

calculating the Guidelines range was harmless because the court 

expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence 

even if its calculations were erroneous, and the 120-month 

sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. United 

States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.) (providing 

harmless error standard), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014). 

Finally, the court’s thorough explanation of its sentence was 

adequate. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009). 

To the extent Belton argues that trial counsel was 

ineffective, we conclude that she has not made the requisite 

showing to assert an ineffective assistance claim on direct 

appeal and that this claim should be raised, if at all, in a 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). United States v. Benton, 

523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Ineffective assistance 

claims are generally not cognizable on direct appeal . . . 

unless it conclusively appears from the record that defense 

counsel did not provide effective representation.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found 

none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Belton, in writing, of 
4

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

further review. If Belton requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on his client. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED