UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4638

IGNACIO CASTREJON-SANCHEZ, a/k/a

Ignacio Castregon-Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CR-99-3-T)

Submitted: September 6, 2001

Decided: September 17, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Andrew B. Banzhoff, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Harry

Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Ignacio Castrejon-Sanchez appeals his conviction and sentence of

108 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine and amphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999). CastrejonSanchez’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Castrejon-Sanchez may

have received ineffective assistance of counsel or that there was prosecutorial misconduct, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, Castrejon-Sanchez has not done so. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm. 

Castrejon-Sanchez argues his counsel was ineffective. Claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on

direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.

1997). To allow for adequate development of the record, ineffective

assistance of counsel claims generally should be pursued in a 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) proceeding. See United States v.

Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists when

the trial record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance of counsel. See King, 119 F.3d at 295. Because review of the record in this

appeal does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude Castrejon-Sanchez’s claim should be brought, if at

all, in a § 2255 proceeding, not on direct appeal. We find that

Castrejon-Sanchez’s suggestion that the Government may have committed prosecutorial misconduct is without merit as CastrejonSanchez fails to submit any evidence to support this claim. 

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Castrejon-Sanchez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that

2 UNITED STATES v. CASTREJON-SANCHEZ
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

UNITED STATES v. CASTREJON-SANCHEZ 3