UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE ANGEL DE SANTIAGO BALLESTEROS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00054-CCE-2)

Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Angel de Santiago Ballesteros appeals his conviction 

and 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine 

hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). On 

appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

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

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether (1) the 

district court plainly erred in failing to release Ballesteros 

from custody due to lack of jurisdiction, (2) trial counsel was 

ineffective on multiple grounds, and (3) the district court 

plainly erred in using the same interpreter to translate 

Ballesteros’ and his codefendant’s proceedings. Ballesteros has 

filed a pro se supplemental brief raising numerous claims. The 

Government has declined to file a response brief. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review challenges to a court’s jurisdiction de novo. 

United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 109 (4th Cir. 2012). 

Ballesteros asserted at sentencing that the district court 

lacked authority to prosecute him because he is a free, 

sovereign person not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal 

courts. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, however, this 

defense “has no conceivable validity in American law.” United 

States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990). 
3

Rather, subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions 

is conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012). Because Ballesteros 

was unquestionably subject to the court’s authority under that 

provision, his jurisdictional challenge lacks merit. 

Both counsel and Ballesteros also raise various claims of 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Unless an attorney’s 

ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, 

ineffective assistance claims generally are not addressed on 

direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th 

Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion 

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit 

adequate development of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 

596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because ineffective 

assistance does not conclusively appear in the record, these 

claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. 

Counsel and Ballesteros also assert that the district court 

erred in using the same interpreter to translate the proceedings 

of both Ballesteros and his codefendant. Because Ballesteros 

did not raise this issue in the district court, our review is 

for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 

(1993); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 

(2013) (describing standard of review). 

An interpreter in federal court “must be qualified and must 

give oath or affirmation to make a true translation.” Fed. R. 
4

Evid. 604. In addressing an interpreter’s fitness, “the 

fundamental question is normally one of qualification, not of 

veracity or fidelity. In the absence of special circumstances, 

the latter qualities are assumed.” United States v. Perez, 651 

F.2d 268, 273 (5th Cir. Unit A Jul. 1981). Ballesteros 

identifies no authority, and we have found none, precluding the 

use of the same translator for codefendants. Rather, other 

courts have found, even in the context of multidefendant trials, 

that codefendants are not entitled to separate interpreters. 

See United States v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 655, 662-63 (7th Cir. 

2001). Moreover, we find no support in the record for 

Ballesteros’ assertions of prejudice. Thus, we find no error, 

plain or otherwise, on the basis of the interpreters used in 

Ballesteros’ criminal proceedings.

Ballesteros’ pro se brief asserts various additional 

claims, which we conclude, upon a thorough review of the record, 

entitle him to no relief. In accordance with Anders, we have 

reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious 

issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ballesteros’ conviction 

and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform

Ballesteros, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Ballesteros

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 
5

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

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Ballesteros.

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