US v. Garcia-Benitez

Filing 920080410


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAUL GARCIA-BENITEZ, a/k/a Mario, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00046-gec) Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland M. L. Santos, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: With the assistance of an interpreter, Saul GarciaBenitez pled guilty to distribution of fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, he alleges that the district court failed to allow him to fully allocute prior to sentencing him, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. affirm. Because Garcia-Benitez did not raise this claim below, our review is for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United For the reasons that follow, we States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993) (providing standard). The record reveals that Garcia-Benitez was invited to personally address the court prior to sentencing, and did so. There is no indication that the district court "cut him off," as he claims in his brief, or otherwise prevented him from speaking as much as he desired prior to imposition of the sentence. claim fails. We therefore affirm. Accordingly, this We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

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?