UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4900
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS GUTIERREZ CAMPOS, a/k/a Juan Campos, a/k/a Pelon,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00496-AJT-2)
Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Lindsay A.
Kelly, Daniel J. Grooms, III, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Gutierrez Campos pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 121 months’
imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that the district court erred
by applying the two-level enhancement for possession of a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. He also
contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by
failing to argue for a below-Guidelines sentence based on his
immigration status and a consideration of the sentencing
factors. Finding no error, we affirm.
The two-level firearm enhancement applies, “unless it is
clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the
offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) cmt.
n.3 (2009). A firearm was recovered from the bedroom of Campos’
residence. He admitted that the firearm was his. Although no
drugs were found at the residence, Campos had been seen
returning directly from drug transactions to the residence.
Based on the quantities of cocaine that Campos was selling, he
apparently stored tens of thousands of dollars in drug proceeds
at the residence. The district court did not clearly err in
determining that it was not “clearly improbable” that the
firearm was available to protect Campos and the money from theft
and the risk of violence inherent in drug dealing. See United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010) (upholding
2
enhancement “so long as a firearm’s location makes it readily
available to protect either the participants themselves during
the commission of the illegal activity or the drugs and cash
involved in the drug business”) (internal quotations marks
omitted); United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th
Cir. 2001) (providing standard).
Campos also contends that his attorney was ineffective
for failing to argue for a sentence below the advisory
Guidelines range. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively
establishes counsel’s constitutionally inadequate performance.
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
Because the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
Campos’ counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider this
claim on direct appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Campos’ 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