US v. Yashua Bey El, No. 09-5069 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YASHUA ANK BEY EL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00248-WO-1) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yashua Ank Bey El appeals his conviction and sentence entered after his guilty plea to one count of failure to report to the Bureau of Prisons for service of sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2), (b)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying raising for the there are court s no meritorious consideration arguments, raised issues but El. by According to counsel, El challenges (1) personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the district court; (2) the denial of a remedy under the U.S. Bankruptcy code; (3) conflict of interest concerning the district court; (4) ineffective assistance trial counsel; and (5) validation of debt requested. pro se supplemental brief. of El filed a The Government did not file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm. We have reviewed the proceedings leading up to El s guilty plea and the Rule 11 plea colloquy and find no error. conclude that entered. his guilty plea was knowingly and We voluntarily We have also reviewed the district court s sentencing decision and conclude there was no procedural or substantive error. discretion We further by conclude imposing a the sentence advisory Sentencing Guidelines. 2 court at did the not abuse high-end of its the We have considered the arguments raised by counsel on behalf of El and supplemented by him. We conclude the district court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction during the course of the proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2006); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886). We further conclude that if El wishes to claim there was a conflict of interest or that he received ineffective assistance § 2255 of counsel, (West 2000 & he Supp. should proceed 2010). under United See 28 U.S.C.A. States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We also conclude that the remainder of El s claims, as put forth by counsel, are frivolous. We have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform El, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If El requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and legal for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on El. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
