UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4040
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE FRANCISCO CONTRERAS, a/k/a Jorge Luis Contreras,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00118-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. Kilbourne, Jr., DUNGAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Asheville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Francisco Contreras pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of possession with the intent to
distribute at least five grams of actual methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). The district court
imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 97 months’
imprisonment. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Contreras’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether counsel below provided ineffective assistance when
advising Contreras to plead guilty and at sentencing. Although
notified of his right to do so, Contreras has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief; instead he filed a letter reiterating some
of the ineffective assistance claims raised in the Anders brief.
We affirm.
We decline to reach Contreras’ claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. “It is well established that a defendant
may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the
first instance on direct appeal if and only if it conclusively
appears from the record that counsel did not provide effective
assistance.” United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th
Cir.) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis
omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 215 (2014). Absent such a
showing, ineffective assistance claims should be raised in a
2
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 here does not conclusively demonstrate ineffective
assistance of counsel, Contreras’ claims should be raised, if at
all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Contreras’ conviction and sentence.
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that
counsel inform Contreras, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Contreras requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may renew his motion to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Contreras.
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
3