UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELISEO GANDARILLA MENDIOLA, a/k/a Chao,
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. (5:15-cr-00161-D-1)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cindy H. Popkin-Bradley, CINDY H. POPKIN-BRADLEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States
Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eliseo Gandarilla Mendiola pled guilty without a plea
agreement to distributing and possessing with intent to
distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 151 months in prison.
On appeal, Mendiola argues that the district court’s
consideration of information from confidential informants at
sentencing violated Mendiola’s rights to due process. We
affirm.
Trial counsel did not seek to ascertain the identities of
the confidential informants, nor did she request any background
information regarding the informants. Counsel did not contest
the reliability of the informants’ statements; she did not
contend that she was unable to prepare for the hearing; and she
provided no reason to believe that she even subjectively
believed that she had not been given sufficient information.
Accordingly, our review is for plain error. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). Under the
plain error standard, Mendiola must show that: (1) there was
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732-34 (1993). 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
2
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We find that Mendiola has failed to show plain error. The
record demonstrates that trial counsel had significant
information on the confidential informants that she utilized in
cross-examination, and she did not suggest otherwise. Further,
the record provides no reason to conclude either that a request
for further information would have been granted or that, had
such a request been granted, the information would have altered
Mendiola’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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