US v. Hilaria Rodriguez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw as counsel [998842350-2]. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00058-BR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998932975]. [11-5201]
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
Filed: 09/07/2012
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5201
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HILARIA RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00058-BR-1)
Submitted:
August 30, 2012
Decided:
September 7, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenna T. Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
Filed: 09/07/2012
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Hilaria
Rodriguez
pled
guilty
to
conspiring
to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 280
grams
of
cocaine
base
(“crack”),
at
least
five
kilograms
of
cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006), and distributing at least 500 grams of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).
She was convicted
after a jury trial for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006).
The district court imposed a sentence of 151 months.
Rodriguez appeals her convictions and sentence.
Counsel for Rodriguez has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district
court
complied
with
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
11
when
it
accepted Rodriguez’s plea, whether the district court erred when
it denied the Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motions, and whether the
district court erred when it imposed a two-level enhancement for
Rodriguez’s
role
in
the
offense.
Rodriguez
filed
a
pro
supplemental brief reasserting claims raised by counsel.
Government has elected not to file a brief.
se
The
We affirm.
Because Rodriguez did not move to withdraw her guilty
plea, the Rule 11 plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
2
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
Filed: 09/07/2012
Pg: 3 of 6
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the
district court substantially complied with Rule 11, that any
omission did not affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights, and that
Rodriguez’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
With
regard
to
her
conviction
for
possession
of
a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, Rodriguez
argues that the district court erred when it denied her Rule 29
motions for acquittal.
29 motion de novo.
(4th Cir. 2005).
This court reviews the denial of a Rule
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
When a Rule 29 motion is based on a claim of
insufficient evidence, the jury’s verdict must be sustained “if
there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
the Government, to support it.”
F.3d
210,
244
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528
2008)
(internal
brackets, and citations omitted).
quotation
marks,
This court “ha[s] defined
‘substantial evidence’ as evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact
could
accept
as
adequate
and
sufficient
to
support
a
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
In conducting our review, “we are not entitled to
assess witness credibility, and we assume that the jury resolved
any conflicting evidence in the prosecution’s favor.”
United
States v. Taylor, 659 F.3d 339, 343 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal
3
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
Filed: 09/07/2012
Pg: 4 of 6
quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.
1817 (2012).
Section
furtherance
924
of
a
§ 924(c)(1)(A).
prohibits
drug
We
sufficient
evidence
to
including
Rodriguez’s
possession
trafficking
conclude
that
support
each
participation
of
a
firearm
crime.
18
U.S.C.
Government
the
offered
element
in
in
a
of
the
drug
offense,
trafficking
offense and Rodriguez’s possession of the firearm in furtherance
of that offense.
See, e.g., United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d
701, 705-06 (4th Cir. 2002) (analyzing sufficiency of evidence
of
possession
crime).
of
firearm
in
furtherance
of
drug
trafficking
We therefore conclude that the district court did not
err in denying the Rule 29 motions.
This
court
reasonableness,
reviews
applying
Rodriguez’s
the
sentence
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
for
standard.
This review
requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
district
court
correctly
After determining whether the
calculated
the
advisory
Guidelines
range, we must determine whether the court considered the 18
U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
presented
by
the
selected sentence.
(2006)
parties,
factors,
and
analyzed
sufficiently
the
arguments
explained
the
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v.
4
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
Filed: 09/07/2012
Pg: 5 of 6
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
If the sentence is
free of significant procedural error, this court will review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
Rodriguez asserts that the enhancement for her role in
the
offense
was
improperly
applied.
This
court
reviews
application of sentencing enhancements for clear error.
the
United
States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 756 (4th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1935 (2012).
Rodriguez’s offense level
was increased by two levels based on her role as “an organizer,
leader,
manager,
or
supervisor.”
Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2011).
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
The enhancement applies to leadership
of only one other person “as long as there is some control
exercised.”
United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th
Cir. 2003).
After reviewing the record and the district court’s
factual
findings,
we
conclude
that
the
district
application of this enhancement was not clear error.
conclude,
after
a
thorough
Rodriguez’s
sentence
Rodriguez’s
within-Guidelines
coupled
with
the
is
examination
of
procedurally
mandatory
We also
record,
reasonable
sentence
minimum
the
on
the
sentence
court’s
and
that
that
drug
counts,
the
firearm
on
count, was substantively reasonable.
United States v. Farrior,
535
(“A
F.3d
[mandatory
210,
224
minimum]
(4th
Cir.
sentence
2008)
.
5
.
.
is
statutorily
per
se
required
reasonable
Appeal: 11-5201
Doc: 35
. . . .”);
Abu
Filed: 09/07/2012
Ali,
528
Pg: 6 of 6
F.3d
at
261
(“[A]
sentence
located
within a correctly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm Rodriguez’s convictions and sentence.
motion to withdraw.
Rodriguez,
in
We therefore
We deny counsel’s
This court requires that counsel inform
writing,
of
the
right
to
petition
Court of the United States for further review.
the
Supreme
If Rodriguez
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew her
motion in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Rodriguez.
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
6
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?