Court Opinion

ID: 9397897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:42.248377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.591289
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4480      Doc: 42         Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4480

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BLANCO NAYALI MORENO RODRIGUEZ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00362-BO-2)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
        Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Katherine S. Englander, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4480         Doc: 42      Filed: 05/25/2023        Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Blanco Nayali Moreno Rodriguez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea

        agreement, to two drug charges and a firearm charge. The district court sentenced her to

        the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months’ imprisonment, and she now appeals.

        Her sole appellate claim concerns the adequacy of her plea counsel’s performance during

        the plea bargaining proceedings. We affirm.

               “In this Circuit, a defendant may raise an ineffective assistance claim for the first

        time on direct appeal only where the ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.”

        United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1115 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks

        omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2780 (2022). Otherwise, such a claim “should be raised,

        if at all, in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Barnett, 48 F.4th 216, 222

        n.3 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 823 (2023).

               Based on our review, we do not find that plea counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness

        conclusively appears from the record. As a result, Moreno Rodriguez’s claim of ineffective

        assistance is “not cognizable on direct appeal.” Id. Accordingly, we affirm the criminal

        judgment.

               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

                                                     2