United States v. Esquivel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANK ESQUIVEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANK ESQUIVEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: July 9, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Mark Brannon, BRANNON STRICKLAND, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, Acting United States
Attorney; Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Frank Esquivel appeals from his conviction and 264-month
sentence and the order of forfeiture* imposed following Esquivel’s
guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846(2000). Finding no merit to his appeals, we affirm.
Esquivel claims that his guilty plea was not knowing and
voluntary because, although he stipulated in his plea agreement
“that the readily provable quantity of the controlled substance to
be used for the purpose of establishing the base offense level is
. . . more than 50 kilograms of cocaine,” he did not realize that
he could be sentenced based on a quantity exceeding fifty kilograms
of cocaine. We find that the district court conducted a thorough
inquiry pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Absent extraordinary circumstances, an appellant is
bound by his statements at the plea hearing. Beck v. Angelone, 261
F.3d 377, 395-96 (4th Cir. 2001). The record in this case does not
support Esquivel’s claim that he was confused about the
consequences of his plea.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
*
Although he filed a notice of appeal from the forfeiture
order, Esquivel did not challenge the order in his brief and
therefore has waived the issue. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178
F.3d 231, 241 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 3 -