United States v. Teresa Marible

541 F. App'x 254
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 26, 2013
Docket13-4393
StatusUnpublished

This text of 541 F. App'x 254 (United States v. Teresa Marible) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Teresa Marible, 541 F. App'x 254 (4th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Marible appeals her conviction and thirty-six-month sentence following her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Marible’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Marible’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during Marible’s plea and sentencing proceedings by failing to investigate her case, failing to challenge the forfeiture of a vehicle, and misadvising her about the possibility of release on bond before sentencing. Marible has declined to file a supplemental brief. We affirm.

In the absence of conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, Marible’s claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 376, 184 L.Ed.2d 222 (2012). Rather, “[cjlaims of ineffective assistance of counsel are normally raised before the district court via 28 U.S.C. § 2255[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n. 1 (4th Cir.2010). Because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings in the district court, we decline to address Marible’s ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Marible, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Marible requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Marible. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this *255 court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Powell
680 F.3d 350 (Fourth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Baptiste
596 F.3d 214 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
Durham v. Varano
568 U.S. 921 (Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
541 F. App'x 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-teresa-marible-ca4-2013.