US v. Jose Cienfuego

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00500-JFA-7. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998707057].. [10-5082]

Appeal: 10-5082

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE CIENFUEGOS, a/k/a Carmelo Cienfuegos-Rodriquez, a/k/a
Crispiano
Romero-Hernandez,
a/k/a
Jose
Socorro
RuizRodriguez, a/k/a Jose Carmen Cienfuegos-Rodriquez, a/k/a
Alfredo Alejandro Gonzales,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00500-JFA-7)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

October 24, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5082

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jose
130-month

Cienfuegos

sentence

appeals

entered

from

pursuant

his
his

to

convictions
guilty

plea

and
to

possession with intent to distribute cocaine and illegal reentry
of an aggravated felon.

On appeal, his attorney has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
raising

the

question

of

whether

the

court

conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing.

appropriately

Although informed of

his right to do so, Cienfuegos has not filed a supplemental
brief.

The Government has also declined to file a brief.
Although he does not point to any specific Rule 11

error,

Cienfuegos

challenges

the

Rule

11

hearing

generally.

Because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th

Cir. 2002).

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court,

through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant
of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges
to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the
maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is
relinquishing by pleading guilty.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b).

The

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for
the plea.

Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th
2

Appeal: 10-5082

Document: 37

Cir. 1991).

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 3 of 4

The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure

that the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).
Our

review

of

the

transcript

of

the

plea

hearing

reveals that the district court substantially complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly ensured that
Cienfuegos’s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by a
sufficient factual basis.

DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20.

The court discussed each of the Rule 11 requirements and ensured
that

Cienfuegos

understood

the

proceedings

guilty knowingly and voluntarily.

and

was

pleading

Accordingly, Cienfuegos has

failed to show any plain error.
Pursuant

to

Anders,

we

have

carefully

record for reversible error and have found none.
affirm

Cienfuegos’s

requires

that

convictions

counsel

inform

and

sentence.

Cienfuegos,

in

reviewed

the

As such, we
This

writing,

court
of

the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

Cienfuegos
believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
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 Cienfuegos.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

Appeal: 10-5082

Document: 37

Date Filed: 10/24/2011

Page: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4