Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy WEST-BEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-11
Citations: 69 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 03-6067
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy WEST-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy WEST-BEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6067.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 27, 2003.
Decided June 11, 2003.
Troy West-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Troy West-Bey appealed from the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). This court initially granted a certificate of appealability, affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part for a determination of whether West-Bey was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel prior to entry of his guilty plea and at the Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. On remand, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied relief on West-Bey's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. West-Bey timely appealed. We find that the district court correctly concluded that West-Bey was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (providing standard); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (same).
In light of the remand, in our initial opinion we declined to consider any issue concerning sentencing. Specifically, West-Bey argued in his § 2255 motion that the district court erred at the sentencing hearing by determining his relevant conduct based on testimony produced at his brother and co-defendant's trial, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to cross-examine the government's witnesses. We now hold that the district court properly declined to address this claim because it was raised and rejected on direct appeal. Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir.1976).
For these reasons, we affirm. The pending motions for appointment of counsel and to compel the district court to provide transcripts are denied. 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.
The district court granted a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000).