United States v. Mauricio Baltazar

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4485
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAURICIO MARIO BALTAZAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00042-RLV-DSC-1)
Submitted: January 5, 2015 Decided: January 14, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mauricio Baltazar appeals the district court’s
criminal judgment sentencing him to 169 months’ imprisonment
pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute at least 1500 grams, but less
than 5000 grams, of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846 (2012). Baltazar’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Baltazar’s trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to move to suppress the evidence obtained from the
search of Baltazar’s cellular phone. Although advised of his
right to do so, Baltazar has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government declined to file a response. We affirm.
We decline to reach Baltazar’s counsel’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Unless an attorney’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,
ineffective assistance claims are not generally 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
sufficient development of the record. United States v.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because there
2
is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel
on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should
be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Baltazar, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Baltazar 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 Baltazar. 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