US v. Antonio Mosley, No. 13-4105 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4105 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 firearm by a Mosley convicted pleaded felon. guilty The to possession district court of a 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 enhancement withdrawing that was his applied objection pursuant to to the four-level U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ยง 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 (2) that the counsel s deficient performance performance was deficient, prejudiced the and defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We may address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the record. lawyer s conclusively appears on the United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). that ineffectiveness Mosley We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude has failed to demonstrate that ineffective assistance of counsel conclusively appears on the record. therefore decline to address this argument on direct appeal. 2 We Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Mosley s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
