Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CIRILO SERRANO-MANEHEN, a/k/a Jesus Flores Lopez, a/k/a Cirilo Maneche Serrano, a/k/a Edwardio Blanco Torra, a/k/a Jose Manuel Renteria Galeana, a/k/a Jose Renteria Galeana, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00131-CCE-1) Submitted: M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CIRILO SERRANO-MANEHEN, a/k/a Jesus Flores Lopez, a/k/a Cirilo Maneche Serrano, a/k/a Edwardio Blanco Torra, a/k/a Jose Manuel Renteria Galeana, a/k/a Jose Renteria Galeana, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00131-CCE-1) Submitted: Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4702
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CIRILO SERRANO-MANEHEN, a/k/a Jesus Flores Lopez, a/k/a
Cirilo Maneche Serrano, a/k/a Edwardio Blanco Torra, a/k/a
Jose Manuel Renteria Galeana, a/k/a Jose Renteria Galeana,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00131-CCE-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ripley Rand,
United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cirilo Serrano-Manehen pled guilty to illegal reentry
by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1)
(2012). The district court sentenced him to 70 months’
imprisonment. Serrano-Manehen appeals, challenging the validity
of his plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
In the absence of a motion in the district court to
withdraw a guilty plea, this court’s review of the plea colloquy
is for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517,
525 (4th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the plea agreement and the
transcript of the plea hearing, we conclude that the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 when accepting Serrano-Manehen’s guilty plea. Therefore, we
affirm his conviction.
Serrano-Manehen contends that the sentence imposed was
unreasonable and that the court erred by imposing a term of
supervised release. We have reviewed the sentence and conclude
that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed
was reasonable. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); United States v. Llamas,
599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.
2010). The district court appropriately considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Serrano-Manehen’s
individual characteristics and history, and adequately explained
the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse
2
its discretion in imposing the 70-month sentence. See
Gall, 552
U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen,
491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to
within-Guidelines sentence). Additionally, although a term of
supervised release was not required by statute, we find no plain
error by the court in imposing a two-year supervised release
term. See United States v. Maxwell,
285 F.3d 336, 339 (4th Cir.
2002).
Serrano-Manehen also seeks to assert a claim that his
attorney provided ineffective assistance. Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are more appropriately raised in a motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), unless counsel’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United
States v. Baldovinos,
434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). After
review of the record, we find no conclusive evidence that
counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we
decline to consider these claims on direct appeal, and we affirm
Serrano-Manehen’s sentence. 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