UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAMIRO CALIXTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00068-F-3)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA & STROUD LAW GROUP, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ramiro Calixtro appeals from his criminal judgment after he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine. He received the statutory minimum 60-month
sentence. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea. The Government declined to
file a brief. After careful review, we affirm.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a court must conduct a
plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and
determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the
charge to which he is pleading guilty, the maximum possible
penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by
pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court
also must ensure that the defendant’s plea is voluntary,
supported by a sufficient factual basis, and not the result of
force, threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)-(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20.
Because Calixtro did not move to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation of
Rule 11 error, we review the plea colloquy for plain error.
2
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). “To
prevail on a claim of plain error, [Calixtro] must demonstrate
not only that the district court plainly erred, but also that
this error affected his substantial rights.” Id. at 816. In
the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes that an error
affected his substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable
probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the
error. Id.
The record reveals that the district court conducted a
sufficient plea colloquy with Calixtro. The only error was
that, although the court expressly stated that the plea was
supported by an independent factual basis, it did not develop it
on the record. However, neither Calixtro nor the record suggest
that, but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty.
Therefore his substantial rights were not affected.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
plainly err in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea. Calixtro filed
a pro se brief stating that he did not wish to withdraw his
guilty plea and that he only requested review of his mandatory
minimum sentence. There was no reversible error in the sentence
calculation or imposition. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Calixtro’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
3
inform Calixtro, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Calixtro 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
Calixtro.
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