US v. Carlos Medina-Castellano
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00155-F-1, 5:11-cv-00221-F. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999710140]. [15-6408]
Appeal: 15-6408
Doc: 12
Filed: 12/02/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6408
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS JAVIER MEDINA-CASTELLANOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00155-F-1; 5:11-cv-00221-F)
Submitted:
September 30, 2015
Decided:
December 2, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant.
John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6408
Doc: 12
Filed: 12/02/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Carlos
Javier
Medina-Castellanos
seeks
to
appeal
the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion.
unless
a
The district court’s order is not appealable
circuit
appealability.
justice
or
judge
issues
a
certificate
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of
A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner
satisfies
this
jurists
would
reasonable
standard
find
by
that
demonstrating
the
district
that
court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies
relief
demonstrate
both
on
procedural
that
the
When the district court
grounds,
dispositive
the
prisoner
procedural
must
ruling
is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
Medina-Castellanos’
§ 2255
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
motion
claims
that
his
trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a violation of
Medina-Castellanos’ rights under the Speedy Trial Act, and for
giving Medina-Castellanos misadvice that caused him to plead not
2
Appeal: 15-6408
Doc: 12
guilty. *
of
Filed: 12/02/2015
To demonstrate constitutionally ineffective assistance
counsel,
a
convicted
defendant
performance and prejudice.
668,
687
errors
Pg: 3 of 5
so
‘counsel’
(1984).
that
guaranteed
is
counsel
the
prove
both
deficient
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
Performance
serious
must
deficient
was
defendant
not
by
if
“counsel
functioning
the
Sixth
made
as
the
Amendment.”
Id.; see U.S. Const. amend. VI.
To demonstrate prejudice, a
movant
probability
must
show
“a
reasonable
that,
but
for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
“A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.”
Id.
We agree with the district court that Medina-Castellanos’
first ineffectiveness claim fails because no Speedy Trial Act
violation
occurred.
As
relevant
here,
the
Speedy
Trial
Act
requires the trial of a defendant charged in an indictment to
begin
within
70
days
of
certain excludable delays.
the
indictment’s
filing,
subject
to
18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), (h) (2012).
The pretrial delays in Medina-Castellanos’ case, which resulted
*
Medina-Castellanos also claims, for the first time on
appeal, that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to challenge the district court’s refusal to allow his trial
counsel to withdraw.
Because Medina-Castellanos did not raise
this claim in his § 2255 motion, we decline to consider it. See
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
3
Appeal: 15-6408
Doc: 12
Filed: 12/02/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
from the joinder of a codefendant, the codefendant’s filing of
several motions, and the court’s grant of a continuance in the
interests of justice, were all properly excludable in computing
the 70-day period.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), (6), (7)(A).
Therefore, Medina-Castellanos’ rights under the Speedy Trial Act
were not affected by these delays, and his trial counsel was not
ineffective for failing to raise this issue.
We
further
agree
with
the
district
court
that
Medina-
Castellanos failed to establish ineffective assistance regarding
his plea.
It is clear from the record that Medina-Castellanos
was persistently unwilling to admit he was guilty of any of the
charged
offenses.
Thus,
pleading
not
option.
Moreover,
court’s
guilty
finding
significance
convicted.
counsel
there
that
of
his
Without
would
Castellanos
of
is
plea
counsel’s
Medina-Castellanos’
ample
support
Medina-Castellanos
any
have
cannot
was
regardless
and
the
evidence
persuaded
him
demonstrate
only
for
fully
to
district
understood
he
different
plead
prejudice,
feasible
the
penalties
that
advice,
faced
advice
guilty,
and
his
the
if
from
Medinaclaim
of
ineffectiveness fails.
For these reasons, we conclude that Medina-Castellanos has
not
shown
district
claims.
that
court’s
reasonable
jurists
assessment
of
would
his
find
debatable
the
ineffective-assistance
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
4
Appeal: 15-6408
Doc: 12
Filed: 12/02/2015
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
Pg: 5 of 5
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
5
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?