United States v. Wilber Baldenebro Medina ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4635 Doc: 28 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4635
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILBER GUADALUPE BALDENEBRO MEDINA, a/k/a Negro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cr-00245-RJC-DCK-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 21, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: H. Justin Pace, H. JUSTIN PACE, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4635 Doc: 28 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Wilber Guadalupe Baldenebro Medina pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (actual),
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and aiding and abetting in the
distribution of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. On appeal,
counsel for Baldenebro Medina has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting
that defense counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance. Baldenebro Medina
has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and
the Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
Counsel suggests that Baldenebro Medina received constitutionally ineffective
assistance of counsel for various reasons, including counsel not providing Baldenebro
Medina with discovery materials or with Spanish translations of documents, and failing to
argue at sentencing for application of the safety-valve. Unless “an attorney’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,” however, such claims are
not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Campbell, 963 F.3d 309, 319 (4th
Cir. 2020) (declining to consider claim on direct appeal where the “record fail[ed] to
conclusively show ineffective assistance” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because the
record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we
decline to address these claims on direct appeal. Thus, Baldenebro Medina’s claims are
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4635 Doc: 28 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
more appropriately raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2006). We express no opinion as to the
merits of Baldenebro Medina’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Baldenebro Medina, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Baldenebro Medina 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 Baldenebro Medina.
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