US v. Javier Valle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999373917].. [14-4048]

Appeal: 14-4048

Doc: 35

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVIER NAVA VALLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2)

Submitted:

June 5, 2014

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 11, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4048

Doc: 35

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Javier Nava Valle (“Valle”) pled guilty pursuant to a
plea

agreement

to

one

count

of

possession

with

intent

to

distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012).

The district court

sentenced Valle to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment. *
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

district

court

complied

accepting Valle’s guilty plea.

with

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

11

in

Valle was informed of his right

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

We affirm.

Because Valle did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error only.

United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002).

To demonstrate

plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the
error

was

rights.

plain;
United

and

(3)

States

v.

the

error

Olano,

*

affected

507

U.S.

his

725,

substantial
732

(1993).

Valle was eligible for relief under the safety valve,
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2012), and thus was not subject to the
statutory
minimum
sentence
of
ten
years’
imprisonment.
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

2

Appeal: 14-4048

Doc: 35

In the

Filed: 06/11/2014

guilty

plea

context,

Pg: 3 of 4

a

defendant

meets

his

burden

to

establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
guilty

but

for

the

district

court’s

Rule

11

omissions.

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
Our
hearing

review

leads

us

of

the

to

transcript

conclude

of

that

the

the

guilty

district

plea
court

substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting
Valle’s

guilty

plea

and

that

the

court’s

affect Valle’s substantial rights.
reveals

that

supported

by

the
an

district

court

independent

omissions

did

not

Critically, the transcript
ensured

basis

in

that

fact,

the

and

plea

that

was

Valle

entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding
of the consequences.

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,

116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we discern no plain

error in the district court’s acceptance of Valle’s guilty plea.
Additionally,

in

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found
no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal.

district court’s judgment.

We

therefore

affirm

the

This court requires that counsel

inform Valle, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Valle

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
3

Appeal: 14-4048

Doc: 35

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Valle.
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

4