United States of America v. Arturo Aburto Sanchez, a/k/a Gustavo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTURO ABURTO SANCHEZ, a/k/a Gustavo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00100-MR-DLH-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Arturo Aburto Sanchez appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012). He argues that sentencing
counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to
one paragraph of the presentence report, ask for a variance, and
present mitigating evidence that might have justified a variance.
We affirm.
A prisoner “may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if and only if it
conclusively appears from the record that counsel did not provide
effective assistance.” United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238,
241 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration and ellipsis omitted). Absent
such a showing, ineffective assistance 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 States v.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the
record here does not conclusively establish the alleged grounds
for Sanchez’s claims, Sanchez does not meet this demanding
standard. These claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255
motion.
Accordingly, because Sanchez raises no claims that can be
resolved in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --