UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4814
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILVESTRE CUADRA-NUNEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00198-D-1)
Submitted: September 27, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laura E. Beaver, THE BEAVER LAW FIRM, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Silvestre Cuadra-Nunez appeals his convictions and sentence
of 180 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5
kilograms or more of cocaine and a quantity of heroin, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012) (Count 1), and possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding
and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2 (2012)
(Count 4). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. We affirm.
A guilty plea is valid where the defendant voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Before accepting a guilty
plea, a district court must ensure that the plea is knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir. 1991). *
* The Government has not invoked the appellate waiver
contained in Cuadra-Nunez’s plea agreement. Therefore, we are not
limited by the waiver provision in conducting our Anders review,
and we need not address its validity. See United States v.
Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
Because Cuadra-Nunez neither raised an objection during the
Rule 11 proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the
district court, we review his Rule 11 proceeding for plain error.
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Our
review of the record reveals that the district court fully complied
with Rule 11 in accepting Cuadra-Nunez’s guilty plea after a
thorough hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that his plea was
knowing and voluntary, Fisher, 711 F.3d at 464, and thus “final
and binding,” United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th
Cir. 1992) (en banc).
We review Cuadra-Nunez’s sentence for reasonableness “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume
that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Sentencing
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an
opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence not based
3
on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen
sentence. Furthermore, Cuadra-Nunez’s total sentence of 180
months was exactly as recommended by the Guidelines and reflected
the statutory minimum for each count. Therefore, we conclude that
Cuadra-Nunez’s sentence is reasonable.
Cuadra-Nunez next contends generally that the Government
breached the plea agreement, although he identifies no specific
breaches. Because Cuadra-Nunez did not raise this issue in the
district court, we review for plain error. United States v.
Dawson, 587 F.3d 640, 645 (4th Cir. 2009).
We use traditional principles of contract law to interpret
plea agreements and “enforce a plea agreement’s plain language in
its ordinary sense.” United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678, 683
(4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). We give plea
agreements careful scrutiny “because a defendant’s fundamental and
constitutional rights are implicated when he is induced to plead
guilty by reason of a plea agreement.” Id. (brackets and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Based on our review of the record, we are convinced that the
Government has fulfilled all obligations required by the plea
agreement. Thus, we conclude that the Government did not breach
the plea agreement.
Finally, Cuadra-Nunez argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion for extraordinary discovery, by which he sought
4
to obtain evidence of the Government’s efforts to evade the time
limitations of the Speedy Trial Act. However, as a general rule,
“when a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all nonjurisdictional
defects in the proceedings conducted prior to entry of the plea,
and thus has no non-jurisdictional ground upon which to attack
that judgment except the inadequacy of the plea.” United States v.
Fitzgerald, 820 F.3d 107, 110 (4th Cir. 2016) (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, because Cuadra-Nunez
pleaded guilty, he has waived his right to seek appellate review
of this issue, and we decline to address it.
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 Cuadra-Nunez, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Cuadra-Nunez 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 Cuadra-Nunez.
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
5