
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4409.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 14, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 4, 2001.
    
      Thomas Martin, pro se.
    David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, SC, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Martin appeals his conviction of possession of counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 513 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Contrary to Martin’s assertion, § 513 is constitutional, as the statute bears a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. See United States v. Pebworth, 112 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir.1997).

Next, we reject Martin’s claim that prior robbery convictions were related for sentencing purposes. Martin’s three robbery convictions occurred on three separate occasions, involved three separate victims, bore different docket numbers, and although the sentences were imposed to run concurrently, the cases were not formally consolidated. Moreover, the pri- or crimes are not related simply because Martin’s motivation for committing each of the robberies was to sustain his drug addiction. See United States v. Sanders, 954 F.2d 227, 231-32 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Rivers, 929 F.2d 136, 140 (4th Cir.1991). Thus, the district court did not err in concluding Martin’s three convictions were not related for purposes of calculating his criminal history points under the Sentencing Guidelines.

The record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, Martin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in this direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.1994).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence. We deny Martin’s motion for court-appointed appellate counsel and for production of transcripts. 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. 
      
       We note that we previously granted Martin's own motion to proceed pro se on appeal without assistance from the federal public defender appointed to represent him in this Court, that Martin has competently asserted his issues on appeal, and that transcripts of the district court proceedings are contained in the record on appeal.
     