US v. Oswaldo Trejo-Casas, No. 14-4437 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4437 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. OSWALDO TREJO-CASAS, a/k/a Abraham Trejo-Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00119-MGL-2) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: January 2, 2015 Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah R. Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oswaldo Trejo-Casas pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. sentenced to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment. He was Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court complied with the requisites of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and, specifically, whether Trejo-Casas was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Trejo-Casas was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed one. government has declined to file a brief. Before district court satisfying the accepting conducted We affirm. Trejo-Casas’ a requirements thorough of Rule The guilty plea 11 plea, colloquy, and ensuring the fully that Trejo-Casas’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Regarding the impact on his immigration status, our review discloses that Trejo-Casas was advised at the guilty plea hearing that his plea could result in deportation, advisal. and that Finally, he indicated counsel asserts that that he understood Trejo-Casas’ this Sixth Amendment rights were violated because trial counsel failed to 2 advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). See Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective assistance direct appeal. Cir. 2008). claims are not generally addressed on United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record. United Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). States v. Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude that this claim should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Trejo-Casas, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Trejo-Casas believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 Trejo-Casas. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this 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.
