UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGELIO CERVANTES-SERNA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01281-TLW-2)
Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 11, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred
William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rogelio Cervantes-Serna timely appeals from the fifty-
seven month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one
count of possessing a firearm and ammunition by an illegal
alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2), (e)
(2006). Cervantes-Serna’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”) in accepting Cervantes-Serna’s guilty
plea. Cervantes-Serna has not filed a pro se brief, though he
was informed of his right to do so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Because Cervantes-Serna did not move to withdraw his
guilty plea in the district court or raise any objections during
the Rule 11 colloquy, the colloquy is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002);
United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002). To
demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that: (1) there
was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error
affected his “substantial rights.” United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732 (1993). A defendant’s substantial rights are
affected if the court determines that the error “influenced the
defendant’s decision to plead guilty and impaired his ability to
2
evaluate with eyes open the direct and attendant risks of
accepting criminal responsibility.” United States v. Goins, 51
F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532 (holding that a
defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty
but for the error).
Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that
the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 in
accepting Cervantes-Serna’s guilty plea. Cervantes-Serna does
not claim that any alleged errors by the district court during
the plea colloquy influenced his decision to plead guilty and we
conclude that no such errors affected Cervantes-Serna’s
substantial rights. Cervantes-Serna’s plea was knowing,
voluntary, and intelligently made, with full understanding of
the consequences of his plea, and the district court found
sufficient factual basis for the plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b). Accordingly, we find no plain error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Cervantes-Serna’s conviction and fifty-seven
month sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Cervantes-Serna, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Cervantes-Serna requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
3
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Cervantes-Serna. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4