Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04775/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04775-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Justo Manuel Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUSTO MANUEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00059-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 19, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4775 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Justo Manuel Gonzalez pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Gonzalez to 

210 months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals, raising a single 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

only cognizable on direct appeal if it conclusively appears on 

the record that counsel was ineffective. United States v. 

Galloway, 749 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014). To succeed on a 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Gonzalez must show 

that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687-88 (1984). The record before us does not conclusively 

establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, 

Gonzalez’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and should 

be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

Appeal: 15-4775 Doc: 46 Filed: 10/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 2