US v. Carlos Soriano-Enriquez

Filing 920090316

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS DAVID SORIANO-ENRIQUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00136-JAB-4)

Submitted:

March 12, 2009

Decided:

March 16, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH AND FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlet Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carlos convictions for David Soriano-Enriquez to distribute appeals from his and

conspiracy

methamphetamine

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and his resulting attorney 180-month has sentence. an On Anders * appeal, brief,

Soriano-Enriquez's

filed

concluding that there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but questioning whether Soriano-Enriquez's indictment was defective, plea was knowing and intelligent, and sentence was proper.

Although informed of his right to do so, Soriano-Enriquez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) requires an indictment statement charged." to of be the "a plain, concise, facts and definite the written offense statutory

essential subject

constituting tracked

The

indictment

the

language, cited the charging statute, and gave Soriano-Enriquez adequate notice of the crimes with which he was charged.

Accordingly, the indictment was not defective.

See Hamling v.

United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 25 (4th Cir. 1990). Because Soriano-Enriquez did not move in the district court
*

to

withdraw

his

guilty

plea,

any

challenge

to

the

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

propriety of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals

that the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, ensuring that Soriano-Enriquez's plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was an independent factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we find no error in the

district court's acceptance of Soriano-Enriquez's plea. The district court sentenced Soriano-Enriquez to the statutory minimum on each count--120 months on the conspiracy charge charge. sentence and a 60-month consecutive sentence on the firearms

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006) (ten-year minimum for offenses involving 18 500 grams or more (2006) of a

methamphetamine

mixture);

U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)

(five

year minimum sentence on firearm charge).

In the absence of a

Government motion for a departure, the district court lacked authority minimum. Cir. to sentence Soriano-Enriquez below the statutory

See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence was

2005).

reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Soriano-Enriquez's convictions and sentence. 3

This

court of

requires the

that to

counsel petition

inform the

Soriano-Enriquez, Supreme Court of

in the

writing,

right

United States for further review. If Soriano-Enriquez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a

petition 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 Soriano-Enriquez. 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

4