United States v. Hurtado , 65 F. App'x 401 ( 2003 )

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.