UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODOLPHO TRUJILLO, a/k/a Rudy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00288-MOC-1)

Submitted: November 25, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew G. Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodolpho Trujillo appeals the 135-month sentence 

imposed by the district court following his guilty plea, 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to 

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least 

five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012), and conspiracy to commit money 

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012). On 

appeal, Trujillo’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

Trujillo’s trial counsel was ineffective. Trujillo filed a pro 

se supplemental brief, in which he claims that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel, that the drug amount on which 

his sentence was based was erroneous, that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the money laundering conviction 

and related increase to his base offense level, and that there 

exists an unwarranted sentencing disparity between himself and a 

co-conspirator. Finding no error, we affirm. 

The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to take the steps 

necessary to ensure that Trujillo received the benefit of the 

safety valve provision. “A defendant can raise the claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel . . . on direct appeal if and 
3

only if it conclusively appears from the record that his counsel 

did not provide effective assistance . . . .” United States v. 

Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). To prove 

ineffective assistance the defendant must satisfy two 

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

objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). In the 

context of a guilty plea, “in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ 

requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have 

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” 

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). The present record 

does not conclusively demonstrate that counsel was ineffective. 

Thus, Trujillo’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record, including Trujillo’s pro se arguments, and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district 

court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform 

Trujillo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Trujillo requests

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for 
4

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Trujillo. 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