UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4626
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
OSCAR PAZ MENDOZA,
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. (1:15-cr-00083-NCT-2)
Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 5, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar Paz Mendoza pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Mendoza to
109 months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals. Appellate counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether Mendoza knowingly and voluntarily
pled guilty. Mendoza was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Because Mendoza did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea,
we review the acceptance of his guilty plea for plain error.
United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir.
2015). “In order to satisfy the plain error standard [Mendoza]
must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and
(3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v.
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-343 (4th Cir. 2009). We have
reviewed the record and conclude that no reversible error
occurred in the acceptance of Mendoza’s guilty plea, which was
knowing and voluntary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Mendoza’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Mendoza, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
2
further review. If Mendoza 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 Mendoza.
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