US v. Moya Moore
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998860230-2]. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00046-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998909070].. [11-5073, 11-5190]
Appeal: 11-5073
Doc: 57
Filed: 08/03/2012
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5073
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOYA VANTION MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-5190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN EARL CANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00046-BO-1; 4:10-cr-00046-BO-2)
Submitted:
July 13, 2012
Decided:
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
August 3, 2012
Appeal: 11-5073
Doc: 57
Filed: 08/03/2012
Pg: 2 of 4
No. 11-5073:
Dismissed, and No. 11-5190:
Dismissed in part,
affirmed in part, by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rudolph A. Ashton, III, MCCOTTER ASHTON, P.A., New Bern, North
Carolina; Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-5073
Doc: 57
Filed: 08/03/2012
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In
appeal
his
Case
No.
235-month
11-5073,
Moya
sentence.
Vantion
The
Moore
Government
seeks
has
to
moved
to
dismiss the appeal as barred by Moore’s waiver of the right to
appeal included in the plea agreement.
Upon review of the plea
agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,
we
conclude
that
Moore
knowingly
and
voluntarily
waived
his
right to appeal and that the issues Moore seeks to raise on
appeal
fall
squarely
appellate rights.
within
the
compass
of
his
waiver
of
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss.
In
appeal
his
Case
No.
292-month
11-5190,
Marvin
sentence.
The
Earl
Cannon
Government
has
seeks
to
moved
to
dismiss the appeal as barred by Cannon’s waiver of the right to
appeal included in the plea agreement.
agreement,
we
conclude
that
waived his right to appeal.
Cannon
Upon review of the plea
knowingly
and
voluntarily
Further, with the exception of his
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claims Cannon
seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the compass of his
waiver of appellate rights.
Thus, we grant the Government’s
motion to dismiss Cannon’s appeal except as to Cannon’s claim
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Cannon’s
appellate
waiver
ineffective assistance of counsel.
3
excepted
appeals
based
on
He therefore has not waived
Appeal: 11-5073
his
Doc: 57
right
to
Filed: 08/03/2012
pursue
this
Pg: 4 of 4
claim
on
direct
appeal.
However,
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable
on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that
counsel
provided
ineffective
assistance.
United
States
v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is well
settled that a claim of ineffective assistance should be raised
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court rather than
on
direct
ineffective
appeal,
unless
assistance.”)
the
record
(internal
conclusively
quotation
marks
shows
omitted).
The record does not conclusively establish that Cannon’s counsel
was
ineffective.
Thus,
we
affirm
Cannon’s
conviction
and
sentence to the extent that he makes this challenge.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
No. 11-5073: DISMISSED
No. 11-5190: DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?