US v. Daniel Chavez-Nevarez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00387-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444655].. [14-4233]
Appeal: 14-4233
Doc: 29
Filed: 09/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL CHAVEZ-NEVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00387-RJC-1)
Submitted:
September 25, 2014
Decided:
September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Rafael Rodriguez, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. William A.
Brafford, Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4233
Doc: 29
Filed: 09/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Daniel
Chavez-Nevarez
pled
guilty
without
a
plea
agreement to one count each of conspiracy to distribute at least
five
kilograms
of
cocaine,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
§ 846
(2012), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012), and was sentenced to
168 months in prison.
accordance
with
Chavez-Nevarez’s counsel filed a brief in
Anders
v.
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Chavez-Nevarez’s plea, and
whether
it
followed
proper
Chavez-Nevarez’s sentence.
sentencing
procedures
in
imposing
Chavez-Nevarez has not filed a pro
se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to
do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive
brief.
We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review.
The record reveals that the district court fully complied with
the Rule 11 requirements during the plea colloquy, ensuring that
Chavez-Nevarez’s
plea
was
knowing
and
voluntary,
that
he
understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and
the sentence he faced, and that he committed the offenses to
which
he
was
pleading
guilty.
Chavez-Nevarez
2
also
attested
Appeal: 14-4233
Doc: 29
Filed: 09/29/2014
Pg: 3 of 5
during the hearing that he fully understood the ramifications of
his guilty plea, and that no one made promises of leniency to
him
if
he
pled
guilty.
Because
no
reversible
error
was
committed during the Rule 11 hearing, and since Chavez-Nevarez’s
plea
was
knowing,
voluntary,
and
supported
by
a
sufficient
factual basis, we affirm Chavez-Nevarez’s convictions.
We also affirm Chavez-Nevarez’s sentence.
sentence
for
standard.
reasonableness,
applying
an
abuse
We review a
of
discretion
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.
2009).
This
procedural
and
review
requires
substantive
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
court
properly
consideration
reasonableness
of
of
both
the
the
sentence.
We first assess whether the district
calculated
the
advisory
Guidelines
range,
considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012),
analyzed
any
arguments
presented
by
the
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
parties,
and
Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
2010).
we
If the sentence is free of significant procedural error,
review
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the
sentence
it
chose
satisfied
3
the
standards
set
forth
in
Appeal: 14-4233
Doc: 29
§ 3553(a).”
Filed: 09/29/2014
Pg: 4 of 5
United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court properly calculated
Chavez-Nevarez’s
advisory,
and
Guidelines
considered
range,
the
treated
applicable
the
§
Guidelines
3553(a)
as
factors.
Moreover, the record establishes that the district court based
Chavez-Nevarez’s sentence on its “individualized assessment” of
the facts of the case and imposed the sentence recommended by
the parties.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, we conclude that
Chavez-Nevarez’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.
In the
absence of any evidence or argument suggesting that the sentence
is substantively unreasonable, we presume on appeal that ChavezNevarez’s sentence is reasonable.
See United States v. Susi,
674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This
We
court
requires that counsel inform Chavez-Nevarez, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
filed,
but
If Chavez-Nevarez 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
4
Appeal: 14-4233
Doc: 29
Filed: 09/29/2014
Pg: 5 of 5
a copy thereof was served on Chavez-Nevarez.
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
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?