IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20056
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ANTHONY CHIBZOR ANIEKWU, also known as
Anthony Chibuzo Aniekwu,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-216-1
- - - - - - - - - -
February 24, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Chibzor Aniekwu appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence on two counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. We
have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we
AFFIRM Aniekwu’s conviction. Aniekwu’s waiver of his right to
appeal his sentence was knowing and voluntary. See United States
v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). He fails to show
that his guilty plea was coerced and therefore involuntary in light
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-20056
-2-
of his solemn declaration in court that he was pleading
voluntarily. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110
(5th Cir. 1998). Aniekwu’s contention that he was denied counsel
at sentencing is unavailing because he specifically and voluntarily
waived his right to counsel after the district court conducted a
Faretta**-type hearing. See United States v. Martin, 790 F.2d 1215,
1218 (5th Cir. 1986). His assertion that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel is not supported by the record because he
establishes neither deficient performance nor prejudice. See Hill
v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Finally, Aniekwu’s contention
that the district court was biased against him, raised for the
first time on appeal, does not rise to the level of plain error.
See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.
1995).
Because we AFFIRM Aniekwu’s conviction and sentence, his
motion for release on bail pending appeal is DENIED as moot.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
**
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 836 (1975).