UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELITON ALONZO HERNANDEZ, a/k/a El Chino,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:12-cr-00705-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 18, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Meliton Alonzo Hernandez pled guilty in accordance
with a written plea agreement to possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). He was
sentenced to twenty-four months for the drug offense and sixty
months, consecutive, for the firearm offense. He now appeals.
His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the validity of the
guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence but
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Hernandez has filed a pro se brief raising additional issues.
We affirm.
After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. Hernandez stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing that he was thirty-five and not under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. He said that he was completely satisfied
with his attorney’s services. Hernandez admitted his guilt, and
he agreed that the summary of the offenses presented to the
court was accurate. He affirmed that his plea was not the
result of threats or promises other than those contained in the
plea agreement. Finally, the district court substantially
complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
2
In his informal brief, Hernandez raises several Fourth
Amendment claims concerning the search of two residences and his
subsequent arrest. His valid guilty plea waives his right to
contest such alleged antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. See
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). We will not
address Hernandez’s various claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel because ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on
the face of the record. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
With respect to sentencing, the court properly
calculated Hernandez’s Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the arguments of the
parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment
based on the facts of the case. We therefore conclude that the
sentence is procedurally reasonable. Additionally, given the
totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Hernandez, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Hernandez requests that a petition be filed, but
3
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 Hernandez. 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