UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EVELYN BAERES-CHICAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge (3:08-cr-00056-MR-1) 

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Carol A. Bauer, Morganton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Evelyn Baeres-Chicas pled guilty without a plea 

agreement to illegal entry by a deported felon, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to seventy months in 

prison. She now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether counsel was ineffective for not formally 

objecting to an error in Paragraph 31 of the presentence report 

(PSR). Baeres-Chicas was notified of her right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. 

 Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy 

discloses full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. 

Furthermore, the record reveals that Baeres-Chicas entered her 

plea voluntarily and knowingly and that there was a factual 

basis for the plea. 

 Paragraph 31 of the PSR stated erroneously that 

Baeres-Chicas was subject to a maximum sentence of two years in 

prison. At sentencing, defense counsel raised a question about 

Paragraph 31. After some discussion, it was agreed that, 

because of her criminal record, Baeres-Chicas actually was 

subject to a twenty-year maximum sentence, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2), rather than the two-year sentence as set forth in 

the PSR. The parties agreed that the advisory Guidelines range 

was 70-87 months in prison. After considering the 18 U.S.C. 

2 
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, the district court sentenced BaeresChicas to seventy months in prison. 

 To allow for adequate development of the record, a 

defendant must ordinarily bring a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion unless 

it conclusively appears on the face of the record that counsel 

provided inadequate representation. United States v. 

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. 

King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Given the lack of 

prejudice to Baeres-Chicas flowing from the error in the PSR, we 

conclude that the required showing has not been made. 

 We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with 

Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel 

inform Baeres-Chicas, in writing, of her right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Baeres-Chicas 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 motion must state that a copy of the motion was served 

on Baeres-Chicas. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3 
4 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

 

 AFFIRMED