UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUCILA RABADAN COREA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00309-NCT-2)

Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States 

Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lucila Rabadan Corea pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 150 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, she contends that the district court 

erred by denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and that 

counsel provided ineffective assistance. She requests that her 

criminal judgment be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm.

First, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Corea’s motion to withdraw her 

guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th 

Cir. 2000) (providing standard of review). The court addressed 

the motion during a hearing, analyzed the six factors discussed 

in our decision in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 

(4th Cir. 1991), and found that none of the factors weighed in 

favor of allowing Corea to withdraw her plea. Additionally, 

while all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight, 

the key consideration in determining whether a motion to 

withdraw should be granted is whether the plea hearing was 

properly conducted under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. 

Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). We conclude that 

Corea’s plea hearing was conducted in compliance with Rule 11 

and that Corea has failed to show a fair and just reason to 
3

support her request to withdraw under Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(d)(2)(B). 

Corea also contends that her attorney violated her 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by 

coercing her to enter a guilty plea. Claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct 

appeal. Such claims are more appropriately raised in a motion 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011), unless 

counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. 

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

2006); United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 

1999). After review of the record, we find no conclusive 

evidence that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and we 

accordingly decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. We 

of course intimate no view as to the validity or lack of 

validity in respect to any claim of ineffective assistance.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Corea’s 

motion to withdraw her plea and affirm her conviction. 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