US v. Caesar Rodriguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00362-NCT-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999281325].. [13-4461]

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CAESAR PONCE RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Cora
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00362-NCT-2)

Submitted:

January 13, 2014

Decided:

January 22, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Rafael Rodríguez, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Sandra Jane
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Caesar

Ponce

Rodriguez

appeals

his

conviction

and

eighty-six-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).

On appeal, counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the court adequately complied with Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 in conducting the plea colloquy and whether it
imposed a reasonable sentence.

Rodriguez was informed of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
The Government has declined to file a response brief.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
Before

accepting

a

guilty

plea,

the

district

court

must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant
of, and determines that the defendant comprehends, the nature of
the charge to which he is pleading guilty, the maximum possible
penalty he faces, any mandatory minimum penalty, and the rights
he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b);

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary, supported
by an independent factual basis, and not the result of force,
threats, or promises outside the plea agreement.
P. 11(b)(2), (3).
2

Fed. R. Crim.

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 6

Because Rodriguez did not assert in the district court
any error in the plea proceedings, we review the adequacy of his
plea colloquy for plain error.
F.3d

337,

342

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Massenburg, 564

2009).

To

establish

plain

error,

Rodriguez must demonstrate that (1) the district court erred,
(2)

the

error

substantial

was

plain,

rights.

1121, 1126 (2013).

and

Henderson

(3)
v.

the

United

error

affected

States,

133

his

S.

Ct.

In the guilty plea context, an error affects

a defendant’s substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable
probability
error.

that

he

would

not

have

Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343.

pled

guilty

but

for

the

Even if these requirements

are met, we will “exercise our discretion to correct the error
only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation

of

judicial

proceedings.”

United

States

v.

Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in
conducting
omissions

the
or

plea

colloquy.

misstatements

While

during

the

the

court

colloquy,

made
see

minor

Fed.

R.

Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G), (N), we are satisfied that any error did
not affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights.
F.3d at 343.

See Massenburg, 564

The court otherwise complied with the requirements

of Rule 11, ensuring that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and
3

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

Filed: 01/22/2014

supported by a factual basis.

Pg: 4 of 6

We therefore find the plea valid

and enforceable.
We

review

Rodriguez’s

sentence

for

reasonableness,

applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
that

the

district

court

committed

Gall v.

We “must first ensure

no

significant

procedural

error,” including improper calculation of the Guidelines range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors,

and

inadequate

explanation

of

the

sentence

imposed.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
575 (4th Cir. 2010).

In explaining the basis for its sentence,

“a court need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
subsection,” but need only provide “some indication” that it
considered the § 3553(a) factors as they apply to the defendant
and any nonfrivolous arguments raised by the parties.

United

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006).

The

rationale “need not be elaborate or lengthy,” but it must be
“tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit
meaningful appellate review.”

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
If

we

find

no

procedural

error,

we

examine

the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “the totality of
the circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The sentence imposed

must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy
4

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

Filed: 01/22/2014

the goals of sentencing.

Pg: 5 of 6

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We presume

that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable,
and the defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.”

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379

(internal quotation marks omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and discern no
error in Rodriguez’s sentence.

The court properly calculated

Rodriguez’s Guidelines range and sentenced him within this range
and the statutory sentencing range applicable to his offense.
Although the court’s explanation for its sentence was brief, it
was sufficiently grounded in the § 3553(a) factors and provided
adequate explanation for its reasoning to support the sentence.
Rodriguez also fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.

See Montes-Pineda, 445

F.3d at 379.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Rodriguez’s conviction and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Rodriguez requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
5

Appeal: 13-4461

Doc: 50

representation.

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 6 of 6

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
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

6