USCA4 Appeal: 22-4741 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL LOPEZ-RESENDIZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00254-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: H. Justin Pace, H. JUSTIN PACE, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4741 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Lopez-Resendiz pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). On appeal,

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), conceding

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Lopez-Resendiz’s

counsel in the district court provided ineffective assistance. Although notified of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lopez-Resendiz has not done so. We affirm the district

court’s judgment.

We review de novo an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that is made on direct

appeal but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the . . . record itself that the

defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v. Freeman,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because such claims are generally not

cognizable on direct appeal, they should normally be raised in a motion brought pursuant

to

to permit sufficient development of the record. United States v.

Jordan,

, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020). Our review of the record does not

conclusively show Lopez-Resendiz has received ineffective assistance; thus, he should

raise this claim, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. See id.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Lopez-Resendiz, in writing, of the right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lopez-Resendiz requests that

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4741 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Lopez-Resendiz.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3