US v. Juan Garcia
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999083088-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00023-MR-DLH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999124145].. [12-4710]
Appeal: 12-4710
Doc: 53
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4710
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JOSE JAIMES GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00023-MR-DLH-2)
Submitted:
May 13, 2013
Decided:
June 6, 2013
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William D. Auman, AUMAN
for Appellant.
William
Attorney,
Charlotte,
Assistant United States
Appellee.
LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina,
Michael Miller, Assistant United States
North
Carolina;
Amy
Elizabeth
Ray,
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-4710
Doc: 53
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Juan
Jose
Jaimes
Garcia
appeals
his
conviction
and
sentence of 135 months of imprisonment following his guilty plea
to
conspiracy
to
possess
with
intent
to
distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
Garcia
challenges the district court’s enhancement of his offense level
under
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
§ 3B1.1
(2011)
and
argues that his due process rights were violated by the fact
that his Guidelines range and sentence were not determined in
conjunction with the entry of his plea.
The Government has
moved
the
to
dismiss
the
appeal
pursuant
to
terms
appellate waiver contained in Garcia’s plea agreement.
of
the
We grant
the Government’s motion in part, dismiss Garcia’s appeal of his
sentence, and affirm Garcia’s conviction.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006).
United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
A valid
waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue is
within the scope of the waiver.
United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
The validity of an appellate
waiver is a question of law that we review de novo.
Id.
“The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether
the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the
right to appeal.” Id. at 169.
This determination, often made
2
Appeal: 12-4710
Doc: 53
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 3 of 5
based on the sufficiency of the plea colloquy and whether the
district court questioned the defendant about the appeal waiver,
ultimately
turns
circumstances.
particular
on
Id.
facts
including
the
accused.”
an
Id.
evaluation
of
the
totality
of
the
These circumstances include all of “the
and
circumstances
background,
surrounding
experience,
and
[the]
conduct
case,
of
the
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 when accepting Garcia’s plea and expressly confirmed that
Garcia understood the impact his appellate waiver would have on
his right to contest his conviction and sentence.
that
his
waiver
is
invalid
because
he
Garcia argues
expressed
momentary
confusion and needed to confer with counsel at several points
during his Rule 11 hearing.
Because, however, Garcia confirmed
that each of his brief conferences with counsel dispelled any
misunderstanding, we find that Garcia’s plea was knowing and
voluntary and that his waiver is enforceable.
The
right
to
waiver’s
appeal
his
broad
language
conviction
exceptions not applicable here.
Garcia’s
claims
on
appeal
fall
and
relinquishes
sentence,
Garcia’s
subject
to
Accordingly, the majority of
within
its
scope;
Garcia’s
due
process
those
that
arguably do not are unavailing.
First,
we
construe
claim
as
questioning the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea, which
3
Appeal: 12-4710
Doc: 53
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
brings it outside the scope of his appellate waiver.
A guilty
plea is not rendered invalid by the fact that a defendant’s
exact
sentence
or
Guidelines
range
remains
unknown to him when he enters his plea.
indeterminate
and
See United States v.
Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1991) (collecting cases
and
explaining
that
there
is
no
requirement
that
the
court
determine and inform the defendant of the applicable Guidelines
range before accepting his guilty plea); see also United States
v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002) (the Constitution does not
require that a defendant be apprised with exacting specificity
of the consequences of his guilty plea).
Because Garcia has not
produced authority supporting his contrary position, he fails to
show error in the acceptance of his plea.
United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002).
To
either
on
the
due
extent
process
that
Garcia
grounds
or
challenges
on
the
his
basis
sentence,
that
his
Guidelines range was improperly calculated, such arguments are
clearly barred by the waiver.
F.3d
532,
(2012).
537-40
(4th
Cir.),
United States v. Thornsbury, 670
cert.
denied,
133
S.
Ct.
196
Garcia does not contend otherwise, and we therefore
grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Garcia’s appeal of his
sentence.
4
Appeal: 12-4710
Doc: 53
Filed: 06/06/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion
to dismiss, dismiss Garcia’s appeal of his sentence, and affirm
Garcia’s conviction.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?