US v. Manuel Reyes-Flore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00132-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999244439].. [13-4326]

Appeal: 13-4326

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL RICARDO REYES-FLORES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00132-D-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2013

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided: November 21, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jenna Turner 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-4326

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Manuel Ricardo Reyes-Flores pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
150-month sentence.

He received a

On appeal, counsel for Reyes-Flores has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with
the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Reyes-Flores’
guilty plea and whether Reyes-Flores executed a valid waiver of
his appellate rights.

Although Reyes-Flores was notified of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
We affirm.
Although
appellate

waiver

counsel
is

raises

valid,

the

the

issue

Government

of
has

whether
not

filed

response in this court invoking the appellate waiver.
despite

the

existence

conduct

the

required

of

an

Anders

appeal
review.

waiver,
See

this
United

the

court

a

Thus,
will

States

v.

Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that if
the Government does nothing in response to an Anders brief in a
case where the appellant has waived his right to appeal, the
court will perform the required Anders review); see also United
States v. Metzger, 3 F.3d 756, 757–58 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
that the Government’s failure to assert an appeal waiver as a
2

Appeal: 13-4326

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

bar to the appeal constitutes a waiver of reliance on the appeal
waiver).
Counsel also questions the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing.

Because

Reyes-Flores

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, 525–26 (4th Cir. 2002).

To establish plain error,

he “must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain;
and (3) the error affects substantial rights.”
Massenburg,

564

F.3d

337,

342–43

unpreserved Rule 11 error).
lies

within

[this

(4th

Cir.

United States v.
2009)

(reviewing

“The decision to correct the error

court’s]

discretion,

and

[the

court]

exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects
the

fairness,

proceedings.”

integrity

or

public

has

not

presented

argument to demonstrate plain error.
the

district

requirements

of

judicial

Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Reyes-Flores

that

reputation

during

court
the

fully

plea

any

evidence

or

Indeed, the record reveals
complied

colloquy,

with

ensuring

Rule
that

11’s
Reyes-

Flores’ plea was knowing and voluntary, that he understood the
rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and the sentence he
faced,

and

pleading

that

guilty.

he

committed
We

the

conclude

offense

that

to

which

Reyes-Flores’

he

was

plea

was

knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
3

Appeal: 13-4326

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Reyes-Flores, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
filed,

but

If Reyes-Flores requests that a petition be

counsel

believes

that

such

a

petition

would

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 Reyes-Flores.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4