
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Buenfil CATALAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-4123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 9, 2013.
    Decided: Sept. 17, 2013.
    Eric J. Foster, Law Office of Rick Foster, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Buenfil Catalan pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having previously been removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Catalan to forty-six months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Catalan argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several arguments in mitigation at Catalan’s sentencing. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In addition, “[j]udieial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Moreover, we may address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.2006). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Catalan has failed to demonstrate that ineffective assistance of counsel conclusively appears on the record. We therefore decline to address this argument on direct appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  