United States v. Jose Cienfuegos ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE CIENFUEGOS, a/k/a Carmelo Cienfuegos-Rodriquez, a/k/a
Crispiano Romero-Hernandez, a/k/a Jose Socorro Ruiz-
Rodriguez, a/k/a Jose Carmen Cienfuegos-Rodriquez, a/k/a
Alfredo Alejandro Gonzales,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00500-JFA-7)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: October 24, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Cienfuegos appeals from his convictions and
130-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and illegal reentry
of an aggravated felon. On appeal, his attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
raising the question of whether the court appropriately
conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. Although informed of
his right to do so, Cienfuegos has not filed a supplemental
brief. The Government has also declined to file a brief.
Although he does not point to any specific Rule 11
error, Cienfuegos challenges the Rule 11 hearing generally.
Because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court,
through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant
of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges
to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the
maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is
relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The
court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for
the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th
2
Cir. 1991). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure
that the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).
Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing
reveals that the district court substantially complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly ensured that
Cienfuegos’s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by a
sufficient factual basis. DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20.
The court discussed each of the Rule 11 requirements and ensured
that Cienfuegos understood the proceedings and was pleading
guilty knowingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, Cienfuegos has
failed to show any plain error.
Pursuant to Anders, we have carefully reviewed the
record for reversible error and have found none. As such, we
affirm Cienfuegos’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Cienfuegos, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cienfuegos 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 Cienfuegos. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4