US v. Enrique Castillo-Felipe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cr-00045-HFF-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998562902].. [10-4934]
Case: 10-4934
Document: 27
Date Filed: 04/07/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4934
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE CASTILLO-FELIPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:10-cr-00045-HFF-1)
Submitted:
March 31, 2011
Decided:
April 7, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 10-4934
Document: 27
Date Filed: 04/07/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Castillo-Felipe pleaded guilty to one count of
illegal reentry by a deported felon in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
be
imprisoned
for
a
term
The district court sentenced him to
of
forty-six
months.
On
appeal,
Castillo-Felipe’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she states that she
finds
no
meritorious
issues
issues to our attention:
for
appeal.
Counsel
calls
two
(1) whether the district court fully
complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in taking
Castillo-Felipe’s guilty plea; and (2) whether Castillo-Felipe’s
sentence was unreasonable.
response.
The Government elected to file no
Castillo-Felipe was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Castillo-Felipe has no valid claim to relief.
Because Castillo-
Felipe did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty
plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error.
United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).
“To
establish plain error, [Castillo-Felipe] must show that an error
occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected
his substantial rights.”
247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d
Even if Castillo-Felipe satisfies
these requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the
2
Case: 10-4934
Document: 27
Date Filed: 04/07/2011
Page: 3
Court’s] discretion, which [the Court] should not exercise . . .
unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or
public
reputation
of
judicial
proceedings.”
Id.
(internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The
district
court
failed
to
inform
Castillo-Felipe
that it would consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) in determining his sentence or that he had the
right to appointed counsel and to have counsel present at every
stage of the proceeding.
These errors do not rise to the level
of plain error in this case because the record does not evidence
a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, CastilloFelipe
would
not
have
entered
his
plea
of
guilty.
United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
We review a district court’s imposition of a sentence
under
a
United
deferential
States,
within-Guidelines
reasonableness.
Cir. 2007).
552
abuse
U.S.
sentence
of
discretion
38,
51
is
standard.
(2007).
afforded
Gall
v.
Castillo-Felipe’s
a
presumption
of
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
We have found nothing in the record to rebut that
presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Castillo-Felipe’s conviction and sentence.
This
court
requires
that
counsel
3
inform
Castillo-Felipe,
in
Case: 10-4934
writing,
of
the
Document: 27
right
to
Date Filed: 04/07/2011
petition
United States for further review.
that
a
petition
be
filed,
but
the
Page: 4
Supreme
Court
of
the
If Castillo-Felipe requests
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 Castillo-Felipe.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
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?