UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4239

ANTONIO ESTRADA PRECIADO, a/k/a

Antonio Estrada,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-174)

Submitted: May 29, 2002

Decided: June 17, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Charles H. Harp, II, Lexington, North Carolina for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio Estrada Preciado pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent

to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. His

attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for

appeal. Preciado has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several

issues. We affirm. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and find no error. First, there was no violation of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The indictment charged Preciado

with a definite quantity of drugs (in excess of five kilograms of

cocaine), Preciado conceded in his plea agreement and at his Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was responsible for this quantity of drugs,

he admitted at the Rule 11 proceeding that he understood that the

Government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he

was responsible for in excess of five kilograms of cocaine, and the

Government could easily have met its burden of proof at trial. Preciado therefore was subject to the statutory minimum of ten years, see

21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2001), and neither his conviction nor his ten-year sentence violated Apprendi. 

We further find that Preciado’s plea was knowing and voluntary.

Contrary to his assertion, he received a three-level reduction in his

offense level for acceptance of responsibility, as contemplated by his

plea agreement. Finally, because ineffective assistance of counsel

does not conclusively appear on the face of the record, we decline to

review this claim. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th

Cir. 1997). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no reversible error. We therefore affirm.

This Court requires that 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, counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

2 UNITED STATES v. PRECIADO
motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on his client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. PRECIADO 3