United States v. Ortega-Montoya , 210 F. App'x 255 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4663
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAVIER ORTEGA-MONTOYA, a/k/a Fernando Mercado
    Gutierrez,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (7:05-cr-01277-HFF)
    Submitted: December 14, 2006               Decided:   December 19, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hervery B.O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Javier   Ortega-Montoya    pled    guilty   to    conspiracy      to
    possess   with   intent   to   distribute    more   that    fifty   grams   of
    methamphetamine and more than 500 grams of a substance containing
    methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000).                    The
    district court sentenced Ortega-Montoya as a career offender to 262
    months of imprisonment, the bottom of the properly calculated
    advisory sentencing guidelines range, after considering that range
    and the other factors in 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp.
    2006).    Ortega-Montoya’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that, in his
    view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenging
    the adequacy of the plea colloquy.        Ortega-Montoya was informed of
    his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
    We affirm.
    Counsel questions whether the district court complied
    with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ortega-Montoya’s guilty plea.
    Because Ortega-Montoya did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we
    review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for
    plain error.     United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th
    Cir. 2002).    We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule
    11 hearing and find no error in the district court’s acceptance of
    Ortega-Montoya’s guilty plea.       See United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
    - 2 -
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record    for   any     meritorious     issues      and     have    found     none.
    Accordingly, we affirm Ortega-Montoya’s conviction and sentence.
    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
    his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.       If the client 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 the client.       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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4663

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 255

Judges: Michael, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/19/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024