Filed: Jun. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAVIER NAVA VALLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2) Submitted: June 5, 2014 Decided: June 11, 2014 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAVIER NAVA VALLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2) Submitted: June 5, 2014 Decided: June 11, 2014 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mar..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVIER NAVA VALLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2)
Submitted: June 5, 2014 Decided: June 11, 2014
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Javier Nava Valle (“Valle”) pled guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to
distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012). The district court
sentenced Valle to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment. *
On appeal, 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 complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Valle’s guilty plea. Valle was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Because Valle did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error only. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate
plain error, a defendant must show: (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 (1993).
*
Valle was eligible for relief under the safety valve,
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2012), and thus was not subject to the
statutory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
2
In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to
establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea
hearing leads us to conclude that the district court
substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting
Valle’s guilty plea and that the court’s omissions did not
affect Valle’s substantial rights. Critically, the transcript
reveals that the district court ensured that the plea was
supported by an independent basis in fact, and that Valle
entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding
of the consequences. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,
116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain
error in the district court’s acceptance of Valle’s guilty plea.
Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found
no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Valle, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Valle
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
3
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Valle.
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
4
