US v. Jose Valderrama
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE MARIA BELTRAN VALDERRAMA, a/k/a Chema, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00200-NCT-1)
February 25, 2010
March 18, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jose Maria Beltran Valderrama pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The district court
calculated Valderrama's Guidelines range at 210 to 262 months' imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG")
(2007 & Supp. 2008), and sentenced Valderrama to 235 months' imprisonment. California, meritorious Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no the
district court abused its discretion in sentencing Valderrama. Valderrama has filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. Because Valderrama 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. See United States v. Our review of the
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Valderrama's guilty plea and that the court's omissions did not affect Valderrama's 2 substantial rights.
ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Valderrama entered the plea voluntarily and with an understanding DeFusco, 949 of the consequences. 114, 116, See United (4th States v.
Accordingly, we discern no plain error. Turning to Valderrama's sentence, we review it under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 41 (2007). ensure that the
In conducting this review, we "must first district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider a the [18 U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence." Id. at 51. "When rendering a sentence, the district
court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented," applying the "relevant § 3553(a) factors to the
specific circumstances of the case before it."
United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also "state in open
court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence" and "set forth enough to satisfy" this court that it has "considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising 3
quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then consider "tak[ing] the into substantive account the reasonableness totality of of the the sentence,
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Even if we would have imposed a different
sentence, "this fact alone is `insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.'" United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, This court
474 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is reasonable. F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Valderrama's first claim challenges the district See United States v. Allen, 491
court's calculation of his base offense level on the basis that the court erred in relying on the drug quantity included in the presentence determining defendant report the ("PSR"). base a drug Under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), to the apply to in a is
responsible not only for his own acts, but for all "reasonably foreseeable" acts of his co-conspirators taken in furtherance of the joint criminal activity. F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). See United States v. Randall, 171 If the district court relies on
the drug quantity included in the PSR, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the 4 information is incorrect.
Id. at 210-11. district court's to
Because Valderrama did not object below, the determination him is of the for relevant plain drug quantity United
States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in determining the drug quantity
attributable to Valderrama, as the PSR indicates that one of his co-conspirators directed another to traffic cocaine from North Carolina to Virginia. Valdrerrama offers no reason why the
facts in the PSR should not be accepted as true. we discern no plain error.
Next, both counsel and Valderrama question whether the district court for erred in its of application a firearm. of the two-level to USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), a district court is to increase a defendant's base offense level two levels "[i]f a dangerous weapon "The
(including a firearm) was possessed."
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).
adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." enhancement USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1), cmt. n.3 (emphasis added). is proper when "the weapon was possessed The in
connection with drug activity that was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction."
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010) 5
court's application of this enhancement for clear error.
United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001). Our review of the sentencing transcript leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement, issue was as the testimony from a indicates residence that where the firearm of at the
conspiracy furthered their drug trafficking offenses. Valderrama also questions whether the district court erred in enhancing his offense level three levels under USSG § 3B1.1(b) for his role in the offense. A defendant qualifies
for a three-level enhancement if he "was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity
involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." USSG § 3B1.1(b). "Leadership over only one other participant is United Because
sufficient as long as there is some control exercised." States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).
Valderrama did not object to the district court's application of the enhancement, Valderrama's challenge is reviewed for plain error. White, 405 F.3d at 215. After reviewing the PSR, we
conclude that it was sufficient to establish that Valderrama was a manager of criminal The activity court that involved applied over the five role
Further, we conclude that the district court did not otherwise sentence. commit procedural error in imposing Valderrama's
The district court made an individualized assessment
of relevant sentencing factors, and counsel and Valderrama fail to overcome the presumption sentence. not abuse of We its reasonableness therefore afforded that his the the
within-Guidelines district sentence. We court
This court requires that counsel inform Valderrama, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If Valderrama requests that a petition be 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 Valderrama. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in 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?