United States v. Cesar Fuentes-Ruiz , 594 F. App'x 145 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CESAR FUENTES-RUIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00072-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: February 24, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cesar Fuentes-Ruiz pled guilty in accordance with a written
plea agreement to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012);
and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). He was sentenced to 178 months for
the robbery and eighty-four months, consecutive, for the firearm
offense, for an aggregate sentence of 262 months. Fuentes-Ruiz
now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the
validity of the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the
sentence, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Fuentes-Ruiz was advised of the right to file a pro
se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. Fuentes-Ruiz stated at the Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 hearing that he had a high school diploma and was not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He expressed
satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A factual basis for
the plea was presented to the court, and Fuentes-Ruiz admitted
his guilt. Finally, the district court substantially complied
with the requirements of Rule 11.
With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated
the Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a
2
sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the
case. The court specifically explained its reasons for denying
Fuentes-Ruiz’s request for a downward variance. We therefore
conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable.
Additionally, given the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Fuentes-Ruiz, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Fuentes-Ruiz 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 Fuentes-Ruiz. 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
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3