Filed: Jun. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-00-262-2) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Mora
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-00-262-2) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Moran..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-00-262-2)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jane Moran, JANE MORAN LAW OFFICES, Williamson, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Lozano-Torres pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
money laundering, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West Supp. 2003), and was
sentenced to a term of 109 months imprisonment. He appeals his
sentence,* contending that the district court erred in applying a
base offense level of 23 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2S1.1(a)(1) (2000), and in finding that he was a leader in the
offense. USSG § 3B1.1(a). Lozano-Torres also maintains that his
attorney was ineffective in failing to object to the base offense
level or the role adjustment in the district court. We affirm.
Because Lozano-Torres made no objection to the guideline
calculation at sentencing, we review his sentencing claims for
plain error. United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).
Lozano-Torres argues that no factual evidence supported the
government’s estimate that his offense involved twenty pounds of
methamphetamine and that the district court failed to inquire into
the degree and duration of his involvement. We note that a base
offense level of 23 applies whenever the defendant is convicted
under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A), as Lozano-Torres was. Therefore,
no error occurred in this respect.
*
Lozano-Torres filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
alleging that, despite his request, his counsel failed to note an
appeal. The district court vacated the judgment and reinstated it
so that Lozano-Torres could file a timely notice of appeal. See
United States v. Witherspoon,
231 F.3d 923, 926 (4th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Peak,
992 F.2d 39, 41-42 (4th Cir. 1993).
2
Further, our review of the materials submitted on appeal leads
us to conclude that there was evidence to support the government’s
estimate that the conspiracy involved at least twenty pounds of
methamphetamine, that the laundered funds totaled approximately
$130,000, and that Lozano-Torres, as the supplier of
methamphetamine to the other conspirators, was a leader in the
offense. Consequently, the district court did not plainly err in
accepting the guideline calculation recommended in the presentence
report.
Because the record does not conclusively demonstrate that
Lozano-Torres’s attorney was ineffective in failing to contest the
sentence report on the grounds alleged here, his claim of
ineffective assistance is not properly raised on direct appeal. See
United States v. King,
119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) (claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel generally are not cognizable on
direct appeal unless the record conclusively shows ineffective
assistance).
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3