United States v. Mateo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4949
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano,
a/k/a Tony Montana,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-01-272)
Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory John Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tomas Mateo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at
least 500 grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 292 months
on Count One, to be followed by sixty months on Count Two. Mateo’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one claim but stating that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review. Mateo was
informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed
such a brief. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, Mateo argues that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to obtain a more favorable plea agreement
and a more lenient sentence. We note that Mateo pleaded guilty to
two counts of a six-count indictment and the Government dropped the
remaining four counts in exchange for the guilty plea. After
thoroughly reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that
ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the face of
the record. Mateo should raise his ineffectiveness claim, if at
all, in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999);
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
We accordingly affirm. We have, as required by Anders,
reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for
2
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Mateo requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that copy of the motion
was served on Mateo. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3