US v. Carlos Contreras-Diaz, No. 13-4821 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4821 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS ALBERTO CONTRERAS-DIAZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00072-PJM-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Welch, III, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Leah Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Alberto Contreras-Diaz pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to unauthorized re-entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). Contreras- Diaz s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel nonetheless suggests that Contreras-Diaz received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel though recommended Contreras-Diaz he plead previously guilty applied to for re-entry asylum even and was allegedly not advised about the possibility of deportation when he pled guilty to the state offense that triggered his initial deportation. Counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as Contreras-Diaz s counsel. responsive brief and The Government has declined to file a Contreras-Diaz has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so. Finding no error, we affirm. After ineffective resolution a review assistance on conclusively direct establish of of the counsel record, appeal. we claim Because ineffectiveness counsel s inappropriate the of find record counsel, does for not Contreras- Diaz must assert such a claim, if at all, in a motion pursuant 2 to 28 U.S.C § 2255 (2012). * F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. See United States v. Benton, 523 2008); see also Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we deny counsel s motion to withdraw from representation and affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Contreras-Diaz, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Contreras-Diaz 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 withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Contreras-Diaz. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We intimate no view as to the validity or lack of validity of such a claim. 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.
