US v. Peribian-Gonzalez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CUAUTEMOC PERIBIAN-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Juan, a/k/a Gordo, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:06-cr-00158-SB)
November 9, 2009
November 24, 2009
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Christopher Mills, J. CHRISTOPHER MILLS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Eric John Klumb, Reginald I. Lloyd, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Cuautemoc Peribian-Gonzalez pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The district court ultimately sentenced Peribian-
Gonzalez to 400 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 raising the following potential claims: whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting PeribianGonzalez's guilty plea, whether the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress certain evidence, and whether the sentence is reasonable. pro se brief Peribian-Gonzalez in which he also has filed a the
validity of his guilty plea and claims that the district court violated the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by making drug quantity findings that were not set forth in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review of the record reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Peribian-Gonzalez's guilty plea. The court
informed Peribian-Gonzalez, through an interpreter, of his right to plead not guilty and have his case tried by a jury. 2 The
district court also reviewed the constitutional rights PeribianGonzalez district nature of was forfeiting ensured charge by that to entering his guilty plea. The the the
Peribian-Gonzalez he was
minimum and maximum possible penalties, the court's obligation to impose a special assessment, and the advisory sentencing
The court determined that Peribian-Gonzalez
was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. district court in Accordingly, we find no error by the Peribian-Gonzalez's guilty plea.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Next, erred in counsel questions whether the district to court
However, counsel concedes that Peribian-Gonzalez did not enter a conditional guilty plea, and, therefore, his valid guilty plea constitutes defects. a waiver of all antecedent non-jurisdictional
See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Finally, Peribian-Gonzalez challenges the sentence
In his supplemental pro se brief, he first claims that court to drug violated quantity the holding in Booker those by making set
forth in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this claim is without 3 merit. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 353 (2007) (recognizing that its "Sixth Amendment cases do not automatically forbid a sentencing court to take account of factual matters not determined by a jury and to increase the sentence in consequence"); United States v.
Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 561-62 (4th Cir.) ("[A] sentencing court is entitled to find individualized drug quantities by a
preponderance of the evidence, as part of its calculation of an advisory sentence Guidelines is within range, the . . . so long as its resulting cert.
denied, Witherspoon v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008). Counsel also questions the reasonableness of PeribianGonzalez's sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness Gall v. United States, This review and
under an abuse of discretion standard. 552 U.S. 38, requires
, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). consideration of a of both the
determining whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory guidelines range, we must then consider
whether the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id. at 596-97;
see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). The record must establish that the district court made "an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented." 128 S. Ct. at 597. We find no error by the district court. properly Moreover, calculated the Peribian-Gonzalez's statements at
The court range.
sentencing hearing reflect an "individualized assessment" of the facts pertaining to his sentence. We also find the sentence to be substantively
reasonable as it is below the statutory maximum of 480 months and below the advisory guideline range of life imprisonment. Peribian-Gonzalez sentence is has not overcome See Rita, the 551 presumption U.S. at that the
States v. Smith, 566 F.3d 410, 414 (4th Cir. 2009). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district We require that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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 the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?