UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4722
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIXTOS ALONSO GARCIA, a/k/a Sixtos Alonso Vega, a/k/a Jose
Almasan Cornejo, a/k/a Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00241-NCT-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON, BLACKMON, LEE & LAWSON,
LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sixtos Alonso Garcia appeals his conviction and 160-
month sentence following his guilty plea pursuant to a written
plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or
more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount
of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). On appeal, Garcia asserts that the district court’s
statement during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that the
maximum penalty that the court could impose was not less than
ten years and not more than life imprisonment caused ambiguity
as to whether the sentencing court had discretion to impose a
sentence less than ten years of imprisonment. Garcia contends
counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to clarify
that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of
imprisonment.
We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel
was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively
on the face of the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434
F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). To establish a violation of
the Sixth Amendment due to ineffective assistance of counsel,
Garcia must demonstrate that: (1) “counsel’s representation
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and
2
(2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude
that it does not conclusively demonstrate that Garcia’s trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we
decline to consider on direct appeal the sole issue Garcia has
presented for review. We therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction
and 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