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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-5073 Doc: 57 Filed: 08/03/2012 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5073 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOYA VANTION MOORE, Defendant - Appellant.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Doc: 57 Filed: 08/03/2012 Pg: 2 of 4 No. 11-5073: Dismissed, and No. 11-5190: Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 11-5073 Doc: 57 Filed: 08/03/2012 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: In appeal his Case No. 235-month 11-5073, Moya sentence.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?