Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yueseyuan CRUEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-14
Citations: 57 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 02-4305
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yueseyuan CRUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yueseyuan CRUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4305.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2003.
Decided March 14, 2003.
Yueseyuan Cruel, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Yueseyuan Cruel pled guilty to making, uttering, and possessing counterfeit securi ties drawn on American Federal Bank, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 513 (2000). He was sentenced, within a properly calculated guideline range, to thirty months of imprisonment. On appeal, he alleges that: (1) his plea was invalid because the Secret Service's search of his home was illegal; (2) the Secret Service and the district court lacked jurisdiction over him; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective; and (4) his presen-tence report ("PSR") was erroneous. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, because Cruel pled guilty to the offense, he has waived his right to appeal from the allegedly illegal search of his home. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Second, the Secret Service had authority to arrest Cruel under 18 U.S.C. § 3056(c)(1) (2000), and the district court had authority to adjudicate the matter under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2000). Third, because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel, this claim fails on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997). Finally, because Cruel did not object to the PSR below, we review the claim only for plain error, Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), and find none. Accordingly, we affirm Cruel's conviction and sentence. 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.