US v. Jorge Rodriguez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00089-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998838533].. [10-5164]
Appeal: 10-5164
Document: 60
Date Filed: 04/24/2012
Page: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JORGE ROSA RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00089-WO-1)
Argued:
March 22, 2012
Decided:
April 24, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion
in which Judge Keenan and Judge Floyd joined.
ARGUED: Timothy P. O'Toole, MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Marie Park, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5164
Document: 60
Date Filed: 04/24/2012
Page: 2 of 5
SHEDD, Circuit Judge:
Two undercover agents arranged the exchange of a U-Haul
truck filled with marijuana for firearms and cash.
the
exchange,
speeding.
state
police
stopped
the
U-Haul
After a positive drug dog alert on
Following
truck
for
the van, the
police arrested Jorge Rodriguez, who waived his Miranda rights
and admitted possession of the drugs.
possession
with
intent
to
Rodriguez pled guilty to
distribute
505.9
kilograms
of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B),
and to possession of a short-barreled rifle and other firearms
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.
§
appeal.
merit.
924(c)(1)(B)(i).
Rodriguez
raises
four
issues
on
We discuss each issue below but find none to have
Therefore, for the reasons below, we affirm the judgment
of the district court.
I.
A.
First, Rodriguez alleges that the delay between his arrest
on state charges on March 25, 2009, and his federal indictment
on March 29, 2010, constitutes a violation of the Speedy Trial
Act.
Rodriguez raises this issue for the first time on appeal;
he did not file a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment or
information.
Thus, Rodriguez has waived his speedy trial claim.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2)(“Failure of the defendant to move for
2
Appeal: 10-5164
Document: 60
Date Filed: 04/24/2012
Page: 3 of 5
dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal
under this section.”).
B.
Second, Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of his Rule 11
plea colloquy on various grounds.
withdraw
his
plea,
nor
did
he
colloquy in the district court.
plain error.
Rodriguez did not move to
raise
any
objections
to
the
Thus, we review his claims for
See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-
526 (4th Cir. 2002).
The Supreme Court has given the following instruction on
plain error review:
[A]n appellate court may, in its discretion, correct
an error not raised at trial only where the appellant
demonstrates that (1) there is an error; (2) the error
is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant's
substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means
it affected the outcome of the district court
proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.
United States v. Marcus, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2159,
2164 (2010) (internal punctuation and citation omitted). “[T]he
burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is
on
the
defendant
claiming
it,”
United
States
v.
Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82 (2004), and “[m]eeting all four prongs
is difficult, as it should be,” Puckett v. United States, 556
3
Appeal: 10-5164
Document: 60
U.S.
129,
135
Date Filed: 04/24/2012
(2009)
(internal
Page: 4 of 5
punctuation
and
citation
omitted).
We hold that even assuming the district court committed the
various errors alleged by Rodriquez, such errors did not affect
Rodriguez’s substantial rights.
Rodriguez has not demonstrated
that but for the alleged errors, he would not have entered his
guilty plea.
See Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532 (the defendant “must
demonstrate that, absent the Rule 11 errors, he would not have
entered into his plea agreement”).
Moreover, Rodriguez’s own
statements during sentencing contradict such an assertion.
He
specifically admitted his guilt and said:
“I don’t want to go
to trial.
See J.A. 32.
I don’t want any more trial.”
Thus,
Rodriguez has not established that the district court committed
plain error during his Rule 11 plea colloquy.
C.
Third, Rodriguez claims that the district court incorrectly
calculated the drug quantity attributable to him, despite the
fact that he inspected the quantity of drugs before he finalized
the transaction.
Rodriguez did not object to the drug quantity
in the district court.
plain error.
Therefore, we review this claim for
See Martinez, 277 F.3d at 525-526.
In making this argument, Rodriguez primarily relies upon a
legal
theory
he
calls
sentencing
entrapment,
under
which
he
claims the government gave him more drugs than he expected for
4
Appeal: 10-5164
Document: 60
Date Filed: 04/24/2012
Page: 5 of 5
the sole purpose of enhancing his sentence.
He cites no case
law in support of this theory and concedes that this Court has
never
recognized
claims
Appellant’s Br. at 23-25.
did
not
commit
plain
of
sentencing
entrapment.
See
Thus, we hold that the district court
error
in
calculating
Rodriguez’s
drug
quantity and, specifically, it did not commit plain error in
failing to give Rodriguez relief under a sentencing entrapment
theory.
See United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142, 149–50 (4th
Cir. 2007) (rejecting plain error argument where there “was no
controlling
‘current
law’
in
this
circuit”
at
the
time
of
sentencing “nor is there any today”).
D.
Finally,
Rodriguez
assistance of counsel.
asserts
a
claim
of
ineffective
Ineffective assistance of counsel is a
claim that this Court “may address on direct appeal only if the
lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.”
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
We
find
that
ineffective
the
record
assistance
and,
does
not
thus,
we
conclusively
decline
to
establish
address
the
issue on direct appeal.
II.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED
5
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?