UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL VALDERRAMA, a/k/a Rafa,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00200-NCT-3)
Submitted: March 5, 2012 Decided: March 12, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Valderrama pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011), and 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006), and one count of currency smuggling, in violation of
31 U.S.C. § 5332(a)(1), (b)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Valderrama to concurrent terms of 235 months’
imprisonment on the conspiracy count and sixty months’
imprisonment on the currency smuggling count; both sentences
were within the range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2007). On appeal from the court’s amended
judgment, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court reversibly erred in finding that a sufficient
factual basis supported Valderrama’s guilty plea on the currency
smuggling count. Valderrama also filed a pro se supplemental
brief raising several issues. We affirm.
The district court is required to satisfy itself that
there is a factual basis for a defendant’s guilty plea prior to
entering judgment on the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). “The
rule is intended to ensure that the court make[s] clear exactly
what a defendant admits to, and whether those admissions are
2
factually sufficient to constitute the alleged crime.” United
States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 366 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Because Valderrama did not challenge
the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his guilty plea
to the currency smuggling count in the district court, we review
this challenge for plain error only. United States v. Mastrapa,
509 F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2007).
Sections 5332(a)(1) and (b)(1) of Title 31 of the
United States Code provide that whoever, “with the intent to
evade a currency reporting requirement under [31 U.S.C. §] 5316
[(2006)], knowingly conceals more than $10,000 in
currency . . . in any conveyance . . . and transports or
transfers or attempts to transport or transfer such
currency . . . from a place within the United States to a place
outside of the United States” is guilty of currency smuggling
and may be imprisoned for not more than five years. 31 U.S.C.
§ 5332(a)(1), (b)(1). Counsel contends that the factual basis
accompanying the plea agreement is insufficient to support
Valderrama’s guilty plea because it contains no information
indicating that Valderrama concealed currency with the intent to
evade a currency reporting requirement or that the manner in
which the currency was concealed was intended to be the method
by which the currency would be transported to a place outside of
the United States.
3
In this case, however, the record makes clear that
Valderrama concealed well over $10,000 in a conveyance and
attempted to transfer such currency in that conveyance from
North Carolina to Mexico. Accordingly, we discern no error,
plain or otherwise, by the district court.
Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the issues in Valderrama’s pro se supplemental brief
and the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s
amended judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Valderrama, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Valderrama
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 Valderrama.
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
4