United States v. Santana ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM MARTINEZ SANTANA, a/k/a William Martinez, a/k/a
Hector Martinez-Guerrero,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00316-BO-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, David
A. Bragdon, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Martinez Santana appeals his convictions for
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(a)(1) (2006), contending that there was an insufficient
factual basis for his guilty plea in light of Flores-Figueroa v.
United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009). Specifically, Santana
contends that there is no evidence in the record showing his
knowledge that the means of identification involved in his
aggravated identity theft convictions belonged to actual people
as required under § 1028A(a)(1). We affirm.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) requires
that the district court satisfy itself that there is a factual
basis for the plea prior to entering judgment. However, because
Santana did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 526 (4th Cir. 2002). A district court may find
the factual basis for the plea “from anything that appears on
the record,” and the court may defer its inquiry until
sentencing. Id. at 531 (holding that court may satisfy factual
basis requirement by examining presentence report).
Here, the presentence report states that Santana
“stole the identity of actual people living in Puerto Rico.” In
addition, at the Rule 11 hearing, the Government proffered that
2
Santana told a confidential informant that he could obtain
“authentic” social security cards, driver’s licenses, and birth
certificates from Puerto Rico. Next, at sentencing, the
Government stated that “they were using real identities and real
individuals in Puerto Rico.” Further, these factual statements
were corroborated by the circumstances of the crime: (1) the
documents were ordered from and sent from Puerto Rico, (2) the
price was inflated because the documents were of “exceptional
quality,” and (3) the documents did in fact use the identities
of real individuals. Santana has not challenged the accuracy of
these statements in district court or on appeal. We hold that
this factual description, to which Santana did not object, was
sufficient to establish a factual basis for the conclusion that
Santana knew that the means of identification involved in his
crimes belonged to actual people.
Accordingly, we affirm Santana’s convictions. 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