US v. Ramiro Aguilar

Filing 920090723

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RAMIRO GOMEZ AGUILAR, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00018-RLV-CH-1) Submitted: July 9, 2009 Decided: July 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie C. Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ramiro Gomez Aguilar pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms 846 of cocaine, in violation district the of 21 U.S.C. sentenced 841(b)(1)(A), Aguilar term to 120 (2006). The court months' by imprisonment, Aguilar minimum on imprisonment required statute. contends appeal that, as a result of the magistrate judge's error at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, * his guilty plea was not voluntary. We affirm. Because Aguilar did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that the magistrate judge's error rendered his plea involuntary, his challenge is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 To establish plain error, F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). Aguilar must show that: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects his substantial rights. States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). United Even if Aguilar makes this showing, however, correction of the error lies within our discretion, which we will not exercise unless the error "seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation Aguilar expressly consented to plead guilty before the magistrate judge. * 2 of judicial proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted). Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(I), a district court is required, the before accepting and a defendant's that he guilty plea, to any P. the advise defendant mandatory To ensure understands R. the the F.3d Crim. Rule, applicable 11(b)(1)(I). court must minimum its penalty. obligation the Fed. under of 25 satisfy "clearly advise" defendant v. Good, applicable 218, 223 minimum penalty. United States (4th Cir. 1994). In this case, Aguilar was subject to a minimum term of ten years' imprisonment and a maximum term of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). At the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge advised Aguilar that the "maximum penalty for this offense is not less than ten years nor more than life imprisonment." to discharge Aguilar claims that the magistrate judge failed his obligation to clearly advise him of the applicable mandatory minimum penalty because this description of the applicable prison terms is that confusing the and inaccurate. judge's Assuming without deciding magistrate description of the applicable minimum penalty was error that was plain, Aguilar is not entitled to relief because the error did not impact his substantial rights. 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995). 3 See United States v. Goins, An error impacts a defendant's substantial rights if it is so prejudicial as to affect the outcome of the proceedings. context, a See Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532. defendant meets this standard In the guilty plea by showing that he Id. would not have pled guilty but for the Rule 11 error. After review of the record, we conclude that Aguilar fails to make this showing. Accordingly, we discern no plain error. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. 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

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?