UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4553
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS PAREDES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00255-D-2)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Slade C. Trabucco, SULLIVAN, TRABUCCO & WAGONER, LLP, Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Paredes pled guilty to aiding and abetting an
armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d) (2000) (Count
One), and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5) (2000) (Count Three), and was sentenced to a term of
eighty months imprisonment, followed by supervised release terms of
five years on Count One and three years on Count Three. Paredes’
appellate attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging that Paredes
waived his right to appeal his sentence and stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging
the enhancement Paredes received for discharge of a firearm, U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(A) (2006).
Paredes has filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that he now wishes to
withdraw his guilty plea to Count Three, and asserting that his
sentence was unreasonable. For the reasons explained below, we
affirm Paredes’ conviction, but grant the government’s motion to
dismiss Paredes’ appeal of his sentence.
Our review of the record discloses that the district
court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Paredes’ guilty plea, and that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-
74 (1977) (defendant’s statements at guilty plea hearing presumed
- 2 -
true). In addition, when the district court questions a defendant
about the waiver provision in his plea agreement before accepting
his plea, as happened here, the waiver is valid and enforceable.
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on
direct appeal unless the record conclusively demonstrates
ineffectiveness, which is not the case here. United States
v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We find no merit
in the other issues raised in the pro se supplemental brief.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Paredes’ conviction, but dismiss his appeal of his sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that such a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -