US v. Eduar Aristizabal, No. 12-4508 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4508 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDUAR ORLANDO ARISTIZABAL, Eduardo, a/k/a The Colombian, a/k/a The Dominican, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00016-LMB-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis E. Virginia, Tonolli, Virginia, Jones, DENNIS E. JONES & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Abingdon, for Appellant. Elizabeth Nash Eriksen, Sean Phillip OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eduar Orlando Aristizabal appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) Aristizabal s attorney (2006) filed and a his brief 120-month pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Aristizabal s sentence and whether Aristizabal was denied the effective assistance of counsel. has moved waiver to the of dismiss right agreement. the to appeal appeal as barred included in The Government by Aristizabal s the written plea We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Aristizabal knowingly sentence and and voluntarily that waived Aristizabal s his right challenge on to appeal appeal to his the reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights. Accordingly, we grant in part the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellate waiver does not, however, foreclose Aristizabal s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Therefore, we deny in part the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal. Aristizabal s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, is not cognizable on direct appeal unless the 2 record conclusively demonstrates ineffective assistance. States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). record does not conclusively establish that United Because the Aristizabal s counsel was ineffective, Aristizabal must instead assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). Accordingly, we decline to consider Aristizabal s claim on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for non-waivable meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Aristizabal s conviction and sentence as to all non-waivable issues. This court requires that counsel inform Aristizabal, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Aristizabal requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to state that dispense withdraw a with from copy oral representation. thereof was argument served because Counsel s on the motion must Aristizabal. We facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
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.
