UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4991
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROLANDO AVILA, a/k/a Joel Mora-Ruiz,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00250-FDW-2)
Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rolando Avila pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court adopted the
findings in the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) and
sentenced Avila to 121 months in prison, to be followed by a
five-year term of supervised release. Avila’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
suggesting that the district court erred when it increased
Avila’s offense level by three levels, pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(b) (2008), based
on his managerial or supervisory role in the crime to which he
pled guilty. The Government has declined to file a responsive
brief and Avila has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
despite receiving notice of his right to do so. We affirm.
Because Avila withdrew his objections to the
Guidelines range calculation in his PSR, we review the district
court’s decision to increase Avila’s base offense level for
plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th
Cir. 2010). Under the plain error standard, Avila must show:
(1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error
affected his substantial rights. United States v. Slade, 631
F.3d 185, 189-90 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2943
2
(2011). Even when these conditions are satisfied, this court
may exercise its discretion to notice the error only if the
error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 735 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
committed no error, plain or otherwise, in increasing Avila’s
offense level. See Slade, 631 F.3d at 189-91.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Avila, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Avila 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 Avila. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3