US v. Arturo Sanchez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00100-MR-DLH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930745]. [16-4035]

Appeal: 16-4035

Doc: 35

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTURO ABURTO SANCHEZ, a/k/a Gustavo,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00100-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4035

Doc: 35

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arturo Aburto Sanchez appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012).

He argues that sentencing

counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to
one paragraph of the presentence report, ask for a variance, and
present mitigating evidence that might have justified a variance.
We affirm.
A prisoner “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.”

United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238,

241 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration and ellipsis omitted).

Absent

such a showing, ineffective assistance claims should be raised in
a 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 here does not conclusively establish the alleged grounds
for

Sanchez’s

standard.

claims,

Sanchez

does

not

meet

this

demanding

These claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255

motion.
Accordingly, because Sanchez raises no claims that can be
resolved in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

are

Appeal: 16-4035

Doc: 35

adequately

Filed: 09/16/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3