US v. Silvino Lara-Lara

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00274-D-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999584039]. [14-4581]

Appeal: 14-4581

Doc: 58

Filed: 05/15/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILVINO LARA-LARA, a/k/a Angel Lara, a/k/a Chapparro,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00274-D-3)

Submitted:

April 24, 2015

Decided:

May 15, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynne L. Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4581

Doc: 58

Filed: 05/15/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Silvino Lara-Lara pled guilty without a plea agreement to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5
kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012) (Count 1);
aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012) (Counts 4 and 5); aiding
and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21
U.S.C.

§

841(a)

(Count

8);

and

eluding

examination

and

inspection by immigration officers, 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (2012)
(Count 11).
to

132

Lara-Lara was sentenced within the Guidelines range

months

in

prison.

In

accordance

with

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lara-Lara’s attorney has filed
a

brief

certifying

that

there

are

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal but questioning whether Lara-Lara’s plea was voluntary
because Lara-Lara was induced to enter a plea based on a promise
by counsel that he would receive an 87-month sentence.

Lara-

Lara has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that trial
counsel

was

ineffective

in

subject matter jurisdiction.

failing

to

challenge

the

court’s

We affirm.

First, because Lara-Lara did not move to withdraw his plea,
we review his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
“[T]o

satisfy

the

plain

error

standard,

[an

appellant]

must

show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the
2

Appeal: 14-4581

Doc: 58

Filed: 05/15/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

error affects substantial rights.”

United States v. Massenburg,

564

2009).

F.3d

337,

satisfies

342–43

these

(4th

Cir.

requirements,

Even

correction

of

if

the

Lara-Lara

error

lies

within our discretion, if we conclude that the error “seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.”

Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and have
found no plain error.
Where, as here, the district court complies with Rule 11
when

accepting

presumption

a

that

defendant’s
the

plea

is

plea,

we

knowing

consequently, final and binding.

attach

and

assertions

directly
district

of

inducement

contradicted
court

and

by

his

sworn

his

Rule

11

during

strong

voluntary,

and,

United States v. Lambey, 974

F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
Lara’s

a

Furthermore, Lara-

misrepresentation
statements

hearing.

are

before

These

the

averments

carry a strong presumption of validity, and Lara-Lara has failed
to offer a credible basis on which to doubt their veracity.
Blackledge

v.

Allison,

431

U.S.

63,

74

(1977);

Fields

v.

Attorney Gen., 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992).
We
counsel

decline
rendered

to

reach

Lara-Lara’s

constitutionally

claim

that

ineffective

his

trial

assistance.

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the
face

of

the

record,

ineffective
3

assistance

claims

are

not

Appeal: 14-4581

Doc: 58

Filed: 05/15/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

generally addressed on direct appeal.
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Benton,

Instead, such claims should

be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record.
United
2010).

States

v.

Baptiste,

596

F.3d

214,

216

n.1

(4th

Cir.

Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective

assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude
that these claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255
motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have

found

affirm

no

meritorious

Lara-Lara’s

issues

convictions

for

and

appeal.

We

sentence.

therefore

This

court

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

If Lara-Lara requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

such
this

a

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Lara-Lara.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4