UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO ARREDONDO-GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00338-LCB-2)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Arredondo-Garcia pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012), and
being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (2012). The court
ultimately sentenced Arredondo to 97 months in prison.
Arredondo’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal, but questioning whether
Arredondo’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Although
advised of his right to do so, Arredondo has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a
responsive brief. We affirm.
Because Arredondo did not move in the district court to
withdraw his plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain
error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.
2016). To establish plain error, Arredondo must show: (1)
there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error
affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). A defendant meets this burden in the
guilty plea context by “show[ing] a reasonable probability that,
but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United
States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Our review
2
of the transcript of Arredondo’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
reveals no error—plain or otherwise—in the underlying plea
colloquy. Rather, the court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11, ensuring that Arredondo’s plea was
knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual
basis. We therefore conclude his guilty plea is valid and
enforceable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
thus affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
counsel to inform Arredondo, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Arredondo requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Arredondo. 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
3