US v. Hector Castaneda Gastelo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00264-FDW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999760878]. [15-4159]

Appeal: 15-4159

Doc: 35

Filed: 02/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR MANUEL CASTANEDA GASTELO, a/k/a Frankie, a/k/a Felix,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00264-FDW-1)

Submitted:

January 29, 2015

Decided:

February 24, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William D. Auman, AUMAN LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4159

Doc: 35

Filed: 02/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Hector

Manuel

Castaneda

Gastelo

appeals

his

240-month

sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with the intent to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012).

Gastelo argues

that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that
prosecutorial

misconduct

occurred.

We

decline

to

consider

Gastelo’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because
the

record

does

ineffectiveness.
216

n.1

(4th

not

conclusively

establish

his

counsel’s

See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214,
Cir.

2010).

We

also

reject

his

claim

of

prosecutorial misconduct because the Government’s statement that
it would seek to enforce a provision of the plea agreement if
Gastelo sought to withdraw his guilty plea — a statement made in
response

to

improper.

an

inquiry

from

the

district

court

—

was

not

See United States v. Kennedy, 372 F.3d 686, 696 (4th

Cir. 2004) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2