United States v. Padron-Yanez , 433 F. App'x 189 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAIME PADRON-YANEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:08-cr-00628-GRA-15)
Submitted: May 18, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011
Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce A. Byrholdt, CHAPMAN, BYRHOLDT & YON, Anderson, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Padron-Yanez appeals his judgment after pleading
guilty to using a communication facility to facilitate the
commission of a felony under the Controlled Substances Act in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2006), and operating an
unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1960 (2006). * Padron-Yanez’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but raising the issue of whether Padron-Yanez was denied
the right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause
when the district court permitted the Government to present an
agent’s hearsay testimony at sentencing. Padron-Yanez has filed
a pro se supplemental brief raising the additional issue of
whether his attorney was ineffective. We affirm.
Hearsay is permitted at sentencing. See Fed. R. Evid.
1101(d)(3); United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 607 (4th Cir.
1998). Moreover, the Confrontation Clause does not apply at
sentencing proceedings. United States v. Powell, __ F.3d __,
2011 WL 1797893, *1 (4th Cir. May 12, 2011). Finally, we may
not address Padron-Yanez’s allegation that his attorney was
*
We note that the criminal judgment contains a clerical
error in its statutory citation for the second count. The error
may be corrected at any time under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
2
ineffective on direct appeal, because such ineffectiveness does
not conclusively appear from the record. See United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
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