Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo FRANZINI-ESCAMILLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-20
Citations: 30 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 01-4040
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo FRANZINI-ESCAMILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo FRANZINI-ESCAMILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4040.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 2002.
Decided March 20, 2002.
Robert J. Harris, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Eduardo Franzini-Escamilla was charged in Counts 3 and 4 of a four-count indictment. In Count 3, he was charged with knowingly and intentionally distributing 251.9 grams of cocaine base ("crack") and 1.2 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1999). In Count 4, he was charged with knowingly carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A)® (West 2000). Franzini-Escamilla pled guilty under a plea agreement to both counts. The district court sentenced him to 132 months in prison and five years of supervised release for Count 3 and sixty months in prison, to run consecutively, and three years of supervised release, to run concurrently, for Court 4.
Franzini-Escamilla's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the issue of whether Franzini-Escamilla's plea was given knowingly and voluntarily and with effective assistance of counsel, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Franzini-Escamilla filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing his counsel was ineffective, he was coerced by his counsel into pleading guilty and coerced into lying to the probation officer, and he was never involved in drug trafficking.
Our review of Franzini-Escamilla's guilty plea and the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing reveal no error. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117 (4th Cir.1991). We decline to consider on direct appeal Franzini-Escamilla's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because counsel's ineffectiveness does not plainly appear on the face of the record. Rather, any challenge Franzini-Escamilla may have to his attorney's performance is more properly raised in post-conviction proceedings. Id. at 120-121. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Franzini-Escamilla's convictions and sentence. 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 petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.