**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shawnetta Belton appeal s her conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court after she pled guilty to conspiracy to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). C ounsel 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 issue s 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.
H aving reviewed the transcript of Belton’s plea colloquy,

we co nclude 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 st andard). With respect to Belton’s sentence, we conclude that the district court did not err in adopting the uncontested factual allegations of the PSR. S ee United States v. Powell , 650 F.3d 388, 394 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court may

summa rily adopt information in PSR unless defendant makes3 affirmative showing that it is inaccurate). A ny error in calculating the Guidelines range was harmless because the court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if its calcula tions 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 tho rough explanation of its sentence was adequate. S ee 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 Ander s , 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 c ourt requires that counsel inform Belton , in writing, of4 her right to petition the Supreme Court of the Uni ted 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 c ourt for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state tha t 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 c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED