UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4326
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL RICARDO REYES-FLORES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00132-D-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenna Turner Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Ricardo Reyes-Flores pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). He received a
150-month sentence. On appeal, counsel for Reyes-Flores has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with
the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Reyes-Flores’
guilty plea and whether Reyes-Flores executed a valid waiver of
his appellate rights. Although Reyes-Flores was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
We affirm.
Although counsel raises the issue of whether the
appellate waiver is valid, the Government has not filed a
response in this court invoking the appellate waiver. Thus,
despite the existence of an appeal waiver, this court will
conduct the required Anders review. See United States v.
Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that if
the Government does nothing in response to an Anders brief in a
case where the appellant has waived his right to appeal, the
court will perform the required Anders review); see also United
States v. Metzger, 3 F.3d 756, 757–58 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
that the Government’s failure to assert an appeal waiver as a
2
bar to the appeal constitutes a waiver of reliance on the appeal
waiver).
Counsel also questions the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing. Because Reyes-Flores 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, 525–26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error,
he “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain;
and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v.
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342–43 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing
unpreserved Rule 11 error). “The decision to correct the error
lies within [this court’s] discretion, and [the court]
exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Reyes-Flores has not presented any evidence or
argument to demonstrate plain error. Indeed, the record reveals
that the district court fully complied with Rule 11’s
requirements during the plea colloquy, ensuring that Reyes-
Flores’ plea was knowing and voluntary, that he understood the
rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and the sentence he
faced, and that he committed the offense to which he was
pleading guilty. We conclude that Reyes-Flores’ plea was
knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Reyes-Flores, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Reyes-Flores 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 Reyes-Flores. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4