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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-5201 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/07/2012 Pg: 1 of 6 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5201 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HILARIA RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?