-
Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-17-2003 USA v. Hurtado Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-2815 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Hurtado" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 641. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/641 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 02-2815 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DIANA HURTADO, Appellant ___________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. No. 01-cr-00133-2) District Court Judge: Hon. James T. Giles _____________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 7, 2003 Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: April 17, 2003) _________________ OPINION OF THE COURT _________________ PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the District Court sentencing the appellant to a term of imprisonment and probation for violating conditions of supervised release. On appeal, the defendant contends that her attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing held to determine whether the conditions of release had been violated. It is well established that “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel should ordinarily be raised in a collateral proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Oliva,
46 F.3d 320, 325 (3d Cir. 1995). We have recognized an exception, however, where the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is predicated on an actual showing of conflict of interest between the attorney and the accused and where the conflict is apparent from the face of the record. United States v. Jake,
281 F.3d 123, 132 n.7 (3d 2002). After carefully considering the defendant’s arguments, we hold that this exception is not satisfied in this case. See United States v. Gambino,
788 F.2d 938(3d Cir. 1986). We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and find no ground for reversal. For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the District Court. This decision does not preclude the defendant from asserting her ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a collateral proceeding if she chooses.
Document Info
Docket Number: 02-2815
Citation Numbers: 65 F. App'x 401
Filed Date: 4/17/2003
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023