UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MANUEL BUENFIL CATALAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00075-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: September 17, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric J. Foster, LAW OFFICE OF RICK FOSTER, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Buenfil Catalan pleaded guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after having previously been
removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district
court sentenced Catalan to forty-six months of imprisonment and
he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Catalan argues on appeal that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise several arguments in mitigation
at Catalan’s sentencing. To prove a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s
performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the
defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. In
addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be
highly deferential.” Id. at 689.
Moreover, we may address a claim of ineffective
assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the record. United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Catalan has
failed to demonstrate that ineffective assistance of counsel
2
conclusively appears on the record. We therefore decline to
address this argument on direct appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3