UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4293
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS SANTILLAN, a/k/a Joe,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00381-FDW-2)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Santillan appeals from his convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
marijuana and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and
his resulting 155-month term of imprisonment. Counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Santillan received ineffective assistance of
counsel. In his pro se supplemental brief, Santillan raises
numerous additional claims.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally
not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. King, 119
F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate
development of the record, a defendant must bring such a claim
in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. See id. An
exception exists when the record conclusively establishes
ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). The record before us fails to
conclusively establish ineffective assistance. Thus,
Santillan’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.
Regarding the claims raised in Santillan’s pro se
supplemental brief, we find them to be meritless. Specifically,
Santillan asserts that the presentence report (“PSR”) contained
“plain error” regarding the drug amount and the failure to
2
provide for a reduction under the “safety valve.” However,
Santillan stipulated to the accuracy of the factual allegations
in the PSR, and absent any objection, the district court was
free to adopt the PSR’s findings. See United States v. Terry,
916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). Santillan also asserts that
the district court erred by accepting counsel’s withdrawal of
certain objections to the PSR. However, there was no error in
granting Santillan’s counsel’s request. *
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Santillan’s convictions and sentence. We
deny Santillan’s motion to substitute counsel. 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 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 or Santillan may renew his motion.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
*
Santillan also raises claims of failure to respond to
“Brady” requests and judicial bias. These claims are not
supported by the record. In particular, Santillan did not make
any “Brady” requests until after his judgment was entered, and
the sentencing court did not make the statements of which
Santillan complains.
3
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
4