UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 01-4031

TOMMY RAY MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-98-123-V)

Submitted: May 31, 2001

Decided: June 12, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tommy Ray Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Ray Moore appeals his conviction entered on his guilty
plea to his role in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). In his brief on
appeal, Moore suggests that counsel failed to provide constitutionally
sufficient assistance during sentencing. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Moore also contends that the district court
erred in failing to make the required findings under Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(c)(1) with respect to the quantity of marijuana used as relevant
conduct to determine Moore's sentence. Because we find Moore's
assignments of error to be without merit, we affirm Moore's convic-
tion and sentence.

With respect to Moore's claim that his counsel did not provide him
with constitutionally adequate assistance during sentencing, see
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, such a claim is only appropriate for direct
appeal where counsel's ineffectiveness is apparent from the face of
the record. See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir.
1992). Because there is no error of this magnitude discernible from
the record, we note that Moore's allegations are better suited for a
motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). In addition, we
find that the district court fully satisfied the requirements of Rule
32(c)(1) by expressly adopting the findings of the presentence report.
See United States v. Walker, 29 F.3d 908, 911 (4th Cir. 1994).

Moore's conviction and sentence are affirmed. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   2
