OPINION

Thomas John Majeed pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to dis-tribute in excess of fifty grams of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment. Majeed, proceeding pro se on appeal, claims that: (1) his sentence violates the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); (2) defense counsel was ineffective because he had a conflict of interest; and (3) the district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find that the district court’s failure to inform Majeed that drug quantity was an element of the offense that had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See United States v. Perez, 270 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dinnall, 269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir. 2001).

We further find that Majeed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before this court. Such claims should be raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, there is no merit to Majeed’s claim that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender.

We affirm the conviction and sentence. We deny Majeed’s motion for injunctive relief. 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.