UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO CAZAREZ CASTILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-04-112)
Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank L. Eppes, EPPES & PLUMBLEE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Regan
A. Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges,
Francisco Cazarez Castillo was sentenced to 235 months
imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, asserting that it was
enhanced based on testimony he gave without the assistance of
counsel, and therefore in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel. We affirm.
After the court accepted Castillo’s plea, a presentence
report was prepared, determining that Castillo’s sentencing range
was 87 to 108 months in prison. Against the advice of counsel,
Castillo then testified for the defense in the trial of Noe
Laureano, Castillo’s codefendant and brother. During that
testimony, Castillo denied his culpability in the drug transaction
that occurred on the day that he and his codefendants were
arrested. As a result of this testimony, the presentence report
was revised to enhance his sentencing range based on obstruction of
justice and to remove the reduction for acceptance of
responsibility that had been originally recommended. Castillo’s
sentencing range increased to 187 to 235 months. The district
court, after hearing argument by counsel and testimony from
Castillo, adopted the revisions to the presentence report and
sentenced Castillo to 235 months.
On appeal, Castillo concedes that there is no authority
concerning the right to counsel during a defendant’s testimony in
- 2 -
another defendant’s trial, but asserts that his sentence is the
result of the denial of the assistance of counsel during his
testimony at Laureano’s trial.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally
will not be addressed on direct appeal unless such ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the record. United States v. Richardson,
195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). We find no conclusive evidence of
ineffectiveness of counsel on the record before us, and therefore
decline to address this issue in the first instance. Accordingly,
we affirm Castillo’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -