UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-MOC-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol A. Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Mosley pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced
Mosley to 100 months of imprisonment, a variance sentence below
the Guidelines range, and he now appeals. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Mosley argues on appeal that his trial counsel was
ineffective for withdrawing his objection to the four-level
enhancement that was applied pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2011) for use or possession
of the firearm in connection with another felony offense, namely
in the course of a drug trafficking transaction. To prove a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and
(2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We may
address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only
if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the
record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that Mosley has failed to demonstrate that ineffective
assistance of counsel conclusively appears on the record. We
therefore decline to address this argument on direct appeal.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We deny Mosley’s motion for leave to file a pro se
supplemental brief. 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3