UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6836
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMONT DELMAR PARKER, a/k/a Monster,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-BR-1; 5:11-cv-00719-BR)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 4, 2013
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, Seth
Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Delmar Parker appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion to set aside, vacate, or correct his 150-month sentence.
The district court rejected most of Parker’s claims for a
variety of procedural and substantive reasons, but it granted a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) on one issue: whether
trial counsel’s failure to object to Parker’s career offender
designation rendered his representation constitutionally
deficient. We affirm the district court’s order as to this
issue, and dismiss Parker’s appeal as to all other claims.
Because the district court granted a COA on this issue,
we will review the merits of the district court’s denial of
§ 2255 relief on this claim. See Golphin v. Branker, 519 F.3d
168, 177-78 (4th Cir. 2008). In so doing, this court reviews de
novo the district court’s conclusions of law underlying its
rejection of the claim and reviews for clear error the court’s
relevant factual determinations. United States v. Fulks, 683
F.3d 512, 516 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, Nos. 12-
8364, 12A248 (U.S. Nov. 21, 2012); see United States v. Roane,
378 F.3d 382, 395 (4th Cir. 2004). We review de novo mixed
issues of law and fact, such as whether established facts
demonstrate a deficient performance by counsel. Roane, 378 F.3d
at 395.
2
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Parker
must show that counsel’s performance was both objectively
unreasonable and prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Under the first prong of Strickland,
Parker must demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness under “prevailing
professional norms.” Id. at 688. The reasonableness of
counsel’s performance is evaluated within the context of the
circumstances at the time of the alleged error. Id. at 689-90.
“If counsel’s performance is found to have been deficient under
the first part of the Strickland standard, to obtain relief the
petitioner must also show that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Richardson v. Branker,
668 F.3d 128, 139 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 441 (2012).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case,
and we agree with the district court that trial counsel was not
ineffective for failing to raise the proffered objection to
Parker’s career offender designation. Thus, we affirm the
rejection of this claim for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Parker, Nos. 5:09-cr-00021-BR-1;
5:11-cv-00719-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2013). As to all other
issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
3
appeal. We deny as moot Parker’s motion for the appointment of
counsel. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4