United States v. Virgilio-Torres ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BISMARK VIRGILIO TORRES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-83)
Submitted: June 24, 2003 Decided: July 8, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FORSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, P.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States
Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bismark Virgilio-Torres was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, and methamphetamine.
On appeal, Torres asserts that defense counsel was ineffective for
failing to move to withdraw the guilty plea and undermining Torres’
claim at sentencing that the plea was not voluntary. We affirm.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally are not
cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290,
295 (4th Cir. 1997). An exception exists when the record
conclusively shows ineffectiveness. Id. Here, Torres stated at
his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was satisfied with counsel,
understood the charges and penalties that he faced, and understood
the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Further, Torres
informed the court that he was under no pressure or threats to
plead guilty and that he had no complaints about the conduct of
government agents and attorneys. Under these circumstances, we
cannot say that the record conclusively demonstrates that counsel
was ineffective for failing to move to withdraw the plea.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2