UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YASHUA ANK BEY EL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00248-WO-1)

Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yashua Ank Bey El appeals his conviction and sentence 

entered after his guilty plea to one count of failure to report 

to the Bureau of Prisons for service of sentence, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2), (b)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). His counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), certifying there are no meritorious arguments, but 

raising for the court’s consideration issues raised by El. 

According to counsel, El challenges (1) personal and subject 

matter jurisdiction of the district court; (2) the denial of a 

remedy under the U.S. Bankruptcy code; (3) conflict of interest 

concerning the district court; (4) ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel; and (5) validation of debt requested. El filed a 

pro se supplemental brief. The Government did not file a brief. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the proceedings leading up to El’s 

guilty plea and the Rule 11 plea colloquy and find no error. We 

conclude that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily 

entered. We have also reviewed the district court’s sentencing 

decision and conclude there was no procedural or substantive 

error. We further conclude the court did not abuse its 

discretion by imposing a sentence at the high-end of the 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines. 
3

We have considered the arguments raised by counsel on 

behalf of El and supplemented by him. We conclude the district 

court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction during the 

course of the proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2006); 

Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119 

U.S. 436 (1886). We further conclude that if El wishes to claim 

there was a conflict of interest or that he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel, he should proceed under 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). See United States v. 

Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We also conclude 

that the remainder of El’s claims, as put forth by counsel, are 

frivolous.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court 

requires that counsel inform El, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If El 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 El. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
4

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED