UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YASHUA ANK BEY EL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00248-WO-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yashua Ank Bey El appeals his conviction and sentence
entered after his guilty plea to one count of failure to report
to the Bureau of Prisons for service of sentence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2), (b)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). His counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying there are no meritorious arguments, but
raising for the court’s consideration issues raised by El.
According to counsel, El challenges (1) personal and subject
matter jurisdiction of the district court; (2) the denial of a
remedy under the U.S. Bankruptcy code; (3) conflict of interest
concerning the district court; (4) ineffective assistance of
trial counsel; and (5) validation of debt requested. El filed a
pro se supplemental brief. The Government did not file a brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the proceedings leading up to El’s
guilty plea and the Rule 11 plea colloquy and find no error. We
conclude that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered. We have also reviewed the district court’s sentencing
decision and conclude there was no procedural or substantive
error. We further conclude the court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing a sentence at the high-end of the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
2
We have considered the arguments raised by counsel on
behalf of El and supplemented by him. We conclude the district
court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction during the
course of the proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2006);
Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119
U.S. 436 (1886). We further conclude that if El wishes to claim
there was a conflict of interest or that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel, he should proceed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). See 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). We also conclude
that the remainder of El’s claims, as put forth by counsel, are
frivolous.
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court
requires that counsel inform El, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If El requests that 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 El. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4