The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7805
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-90-113, CA-97-444-3)
Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999
Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Brown, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We
first note that Brown’s § 2255 motion is successive and he failed
to move in this court for authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244, 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Second, Brown’s contention that counsel was ineffective because he
failed to object to the amount of cocaine base attributed to Brown
at sentencing is meritless because, as the district court correctly
concluded, a co-conspirator is liable for “all reasonably fore-
seeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly
undertaken criminal activity.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (1991); see also United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d
604, 614 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1242 (1994). Conse-
quently, Brown has failed to show that counsel’s conduct affected
the outcome of his sentence. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-
pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2