Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano, a/k/a Tony Montana, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-06
Citations: 71 F. App'x 959
Docket Number: No. 02-4949
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano, a/k/a Tony Montana, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 959–960

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano, a/k/a Tony Montana, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4949.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 15, 2008.
Decided Aug. 6, 2003.
Gregory John Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tomas Mateo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 292 months on Count One, to be followed by sixty months on Count Two. Mateo's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one claim but stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review. Mateo was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, Mateo argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a more favorable plea agreement and a more lenient sentence. We note that Mateo pleaded guilty to two counts of a six-count indictment and the Government dropped the remaining four counts in exchange for the guilty plea. After thoroughly reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. Mateo should raise his ineffectiveness claim, if at all, in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999); United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).
We accordingly affirm. We have, as required by Anders, reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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 Mateo requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that copy of the motion was served on Mateo. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.