UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4789
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO ROSALES-VACA,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00268-HFF-1)
Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 14, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Brooks, III, THE BROOKS LAW OFFICES, LLC, Sumter,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Rosales-Vaca pled guilty to illegal reentry
after deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2006). He was sentenced to forty-one
months’ imprisonment. Rosales-Vaca’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but generally questioning whether Rosales-Vaca’s guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary. Rosales-Vaca was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done
so. The Government declined to file a response. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Because Rosales-Vaca did not move in the district
court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error,
[Rosales-Vaca] must show that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.”
United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court fully complied with Rule 11, and that Rosales-Vaca’s
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and supported by an
independent factual basis.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Rosales-Vaca, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Rosales-Vaca 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 Rosales-Vaca. 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