United States v. Jose Ballesteros , 603 F. App'x 216 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4702
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANGEL DE SANTIAGO BALLESTEROS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00054-CCE-2)
Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 20, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Angel de Santiago Ballesteros appeals his conviction
and 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether (1) the
district court plainly erred in failing to release Ballesteros
from custody due to lack of jurisdiction, (2) trial counsel was
ineffective on multiple grounds, and (3) the district court
plainly erred in using the same interpreter to translate
Ballesteros’ and his codefendant’s proceedings. Ballesteros has
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising numerous claims. The
Government has declined to file a response brief. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review challenges to a court’s jurisdiction de novo.
United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 109 (4th Cir. 2012).
Ballesteros asserted at sentencing that the district court
lacked authority to prosecute him because he is a free,
sovereign person not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, however, this
defense “has no conceivable validity in American law.” United
States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990).
2
Rather, subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions
is conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012). Because Ballesteros
was unquestionably subject to the court’s authority under that
provision, his jurisdictional challenge lacks merit.
Both counsel and Ballesteros also raise various claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Unless an attorney’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,
ineffective assistance claims generally are not 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
adequate development of the record. United States v. Baptiste,
596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because ineffective
assistance does not conclusively appear in the record, these
claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Counsel and Ballesteros also assert that the district court
erred in using the same interpreter to translate the proceedings
of both Ballesteros and his codefendant. Because Ballesteros
did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is
for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731
(1993); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126
(2013) (describing standard of review).
An interpreter in federal court “must be qualified and must
give oath or affirmation to make a true translation.” Fed. R.
3
Evid. 604. In addressing an interpreter’s fitness, “the
fundamental question is normally one of qualification, not of
veracity or fidelity. In the absence of special circumstances,
the latter qualities are assumed.” United States v. Perez, 651
F.2d 268, 273 (5th Cir. Unit A Jul. 1981). Ballesteros
identifies no authority, and we have found none, precluding the
use of the same translator for codefendants. Rather, other
courts have found, even in the context of multidefendant trials,
that codefendants are not entitled to separate interpreters.
See United States v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 655, 662-63 (7th Cir.
2001). Moreover, we find no support in the record for
Ballesteros’ assertions of prejudice. Thus, we find no error,
plain or otherwise, on the basis of the interpreters used in
Ballesteros’ criminal proceedings.
Ballesteros’ pro se brief asserts various additional
claims, which we conclude, upon a thorough review of the record,
entitle him to no relief. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ballesteros’ conviction
and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Ballesteros, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Ballesteros
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
4
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Ballesteros.
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
5