UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4821
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ALBERTO CONTRERAS-DIAZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00072-PJM-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Welch, III, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Leah
Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Alberto Contreras-Diaz pled guilty pursuant to
a plea agreement to unauthorized re-entry of a deported alien,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). Contreras-
Diaz’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to conduct an independent
review of the record. Counsel nonetheless suggests that
Contreras-Diaz received ineffective assistance of counsel when
trial counsel recommended he plead guilty to re-entry even
though Contreras-Diaz previously applied for asylum and was
allegedly not advised about the possibility of deportation when
he pled guilty to the state offense that triggered his initial
deportation. Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as
Contreras-Diaz’s counsel. The Government has declined to file a
responsive brief and Contreras-Diaz has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do
so. Finding no error, we affirm.
After a review of the record, we find counsel’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim inappropriate for
resolution on direct appeal. Because the record does not
conclusively establish ineffectiveness of counsel, Contreras-
Diaz must assert such a claim, if at all, in a motion pursuant
2
to 28 U.S.C § 2255 (2012). * See United States v. Benton, 523
F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Chaidez v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw from
representation and affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Contreras-Diaz, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Contreras-Diaz 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 Contreras-Diaz. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
We intimate no view as to the validity or lack of validity
of such a claim.
3