Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Randolph WALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-10
Citations: 20 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 01-7082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Randolph WALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Randolph WALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 20, 2001.
Decided Oct. 10, 2001.
Gerald Randolph Wall, pro se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appel-lee.
Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Randolph Wall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Wall pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). Wall argues a 1974 conviction for burglary of a house trailer was improperly used as a sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000). Because he did not raise this nonconstitutional issue in his direct appeal, it is deemed waived in his § 2255 motion. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795, 796 (4th Cir.1989).
In his notice of appeal, Wall challenged the district court's ruling on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim; however, because he did not raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his brief, the issue is deemed waived. See Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir.1997); 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED.