UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL OCAMPO, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00019-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Manuel Ocampo, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. He
was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment, the bottom of his
correctly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On
appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the
Government breached its plea agreement with Ocampo by failing to
recommend a six-month sentence for his wife. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
A defendant alleging the Government’s breach of a plea
agreement bears the burden of establishing that breach by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d
187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000). Because Ocampo raises this issue for
the first time on appeal, we review it for plain error. United
States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 65-66 & n.1 (4th Cir. 1997). We
find no plain error, though, as the Government did not promise
to recommend a six-month sentence in its plea agreement with
Ocampo. Moreover, at his plea hearing, Ocampo stated that there
were no promises made outside the plea agreement. Thus, this
claim fails.
2
Although not a listed issue in his Anders brief, Ocampo
alleges trial counsel told him that his wife would receive a
six-month sentence if he accepted the Government’s plea offer.
(Anders Br. at 12-13). To the extent that this could be
construed as an ineffective assistance claim of counsel claim,
we note that unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively
appears on the face of the record, such claims are not generally
addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such a claim 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 the record does not conclusively establish ineffective
assistance of counsel, we conclude that this claim 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
therefore affirm Ocampo’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Ocampo, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Ocampo 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
3
was served on Ocampo. 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
4