Court Opinion

ID: 1001741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:00:20.701716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:18.074782
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4790

SAYIRA URRIOLA,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-98-383)

Submitted: May 19, 2000

Decided: June 8, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gary A. Ticknor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat-
taglia, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, Sayira Urriola was convicted of one count of con-
spiracy to distribute cocaine. Urriola's attorney has filed a brief pur-
suant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising three
issues but indicating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Urriola has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising sev-
eral more issues. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the
conviction and sentence.

We find that the Government did not engage in outrageous conduct
in its investigation of the conspiracy. We also find that because
Urriola did not object to her co-defendants' motion for a mistrial, her
retrial did not violate her protection against double jeopardy. See
United States v. Ham, 58 F.3d 78, 83 (4th Cir. 1995). We also find
that the district court did not err by denying Urriola's request that the
jury be instructed on multiple conspiracies. See United States v. Ken-
nedy, 32 F.3d 876, 884 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Crockett, 813
F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (4th Cir. 1987).

We decline to consider Urriola's claim that her counsel was inef-
fective at this juncture because it does not conclusively appear on the
face of the record that her counsel was ineffective. See United States
v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir. 1992).

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and Urriola's
other claims and have found no reversible error. We therefore affirm
the conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
be filed, then counsel may move 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

                     2
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
01980 00000 00000 00000 00000