United States v. Mauricio Baltazar

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

MAURICIO MARIO BALTAZAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00042-RLV-DSC-1)

Submitted: January 5, 2015 Decided: January 14, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mauricio Baltazar appeals the district court’s

criminal judgment sentencing him to 169 months’ imprisonment

pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to

possess with intent to distribute at least 1500 grams, but less

than 5000 grams, of a mixture and substance containing a

detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846 (2012). Baltazar’s counsel filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but

questioning whether Baltazar’s trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to move to suppress the evidence obtained from the

search of Baltazar’s cellular phone. Although advised of his

right to do so, Baltazar has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief. The Government declined to file a response. We affirm.

We decline to reach Baltazar’s counsel’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Unless an attorney’s

ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,

ineffective assistance claims are not generally addressed on

direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th

Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit

sufficient development of the record. United States v.

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because there

2
is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel

on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should

be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Baltazar, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Baltazar 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 Baltazar. 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