UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS ALBERTO CONTRERAS-DIAZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:13-cr-00072-PJM-1)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Welch, III, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Leah 

Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Alberto Contreras-Diaz pled guilty pursuant to 

a plea agreement to unauthorized re-entry of a deported alien, 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). ContrerasDiaz’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to conduct an independent 

review of the record. Counsel nonetheless suggests that 

Contreras-Diaz received ineffective assistance of counsel when

trial counsel recommended he plead guilty to re-entry even 

though Contreras-Diaz previously applied for asylum and was 

allegedly not advised about the possibility of deportation when

he pled guilty to the state offense that triggered his initial 

deportation. Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as 

Contreras-Diaz’s counsel. The Government has declined to file a 

responsive brief and Contreras-Diaz has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do 

so. Finding no error, we affirm.

After a review of the record, we find counsel’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim inappropriate for 

resolution on direct appeal. Because the record does not 

conclusively establish ineffectiveness of counsel, ContrerasDiaz must assert such a claim, if at all, in a motion pursuant 
3

to 28 U.S.C § 2255 (2012).* See United States v. Benton, 523 

F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Chaidez v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw from 

representation and affirm the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Contreras-Diaz, in writing, 

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for further review. If Contreras-Diaz 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 Contreras-Diaz. 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

 * We intimate no view as to the validity or lack of validity 

of such a claim.