US v. Carlos Medina-Castellano


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6408 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS JAVIER MEDINA-CASTELLANOS,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?