US v. Jose Contreras

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999582758-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00118-MR-DLH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658136].. [15-4040]

Appeal: 15-4040

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE FRANCISCO CONTRERAS, a/k/a Jorge Luis Contreras,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00118-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 11, 2015

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Kilbourne, Jr., DUNGAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4040

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jose Francisco Contreras pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of possession with the intent to
distribute at least five grams of actual methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012).
imposed

a

bottom-of-the-Guidelines

imprisonment.

The district court

sentence

of

97

months’

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Contreras’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there

are

whether

no

meritorious

counsel

below

issues

provided

for

appeal,

ineffective

but

questioning

assistance

advising Contreras to plead guilty and at sentencing.

when

Although

notified of his right to do so, Contreras has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief; instead he filed a letter reiterating some
of the ineffective assistance claims raised in the Anders brief.
We affirm.
We

decline

to

assistance of counsel.

reach

Contreras’

claims

of

ineffective

“It is well established that a defendant

may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the
first instance on direct appeal if and only if it conclusively
appears from the record that counsel did not provide effective
assistance.”
Cir.)

United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th

(internal

quotation

marks,

brackets,

omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 215 (2014).

and

ellipsis

Absent such a

showing, ineffective assistance claims should be raised in a
2

Appeal: 15-4040

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to
permit sufficient development of the record.

United States v.

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

Because the

record

ineffective

here

does

not

conclusively

demonstrate

assistance of counsel, Contreras’ claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Contreras’ conviction and sentence.

We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

This court requires that

counsel inform Contreras, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
Contreras

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

If

counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may renew his motion to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Contreras.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3