US v. Trujillo-Gudino
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PABLO TRUJILLIO-GUDINO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00317)
September 12, 2007
September 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Pablo Trujillo-Gudino pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess five or more kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), and possession of five or more kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The
district court sentenced him to 151 months' incarceration. On appeal, Trujillo-Gudino argues he received ineffective assistance because counsel failed to (1) advocate his innocence at the Rule 11 hearing; (2) move to withdraw his guilty plea; and (3) advocate for a lesser sentence during the sentencing hearing. This court "may address [claims of ineffective assistance of counsel] on direct appeal only if the lawyer's ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record." United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1203 (2006). Because we find that ineffective assistance of
counsel does not conclusively appear on the record, we decline to address these claims on direct appeal. Rather, any claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel Trujillo-Gudino wishes to raise should be pursued in a timely motion for post-conviction relief submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm Trujillo-Gudino's convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?