Case ID: f-appx_47/html/0678-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Inocente Antunez JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 30, 2002.
    Decided Oct. 10, 2002.
    
      George Mason Oliver, Stubbs & Perdue, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Inocente Antunez Jimenez appeals his convictions and 120-month sentence, following his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, for distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000); and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). After an extensive plea hearing, his guilty plea was accepted and entered on October 16, 2001. Jimenez’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. Jimenez was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

Counsel asserts prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments, but concedes each claim lacks merit. We also note that Jimenez waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement except for any upward departure at sentencing or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.

To the extent that Jimenez asserts prosecutorial misconduct, his claims are unsupported by the record. Furthermore, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not considered on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir.1991). Because the record on appeal does not conclusively establish counsel was ineffective, these claims should be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jimenez’s conviction and sentence. 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 the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.