US v. Roger Mina-Cuero

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00131-JCC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999628036]. [14-4775]

Appeal: 14-4775

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER MINA-CUERO, a/k/a Jesus A. Serrano-Machado, a/k/a Jaime
J. Estrada-Vargas, a/k/a Christain C. Diaz,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00131-JCC-1)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4775

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Roger Mina-Cuero pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to interstate transportation of stolen property, in
violation 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (West 2015), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012),
and

illegal

reentry

after

§ 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012).

removal,

in

violation

of

8

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Mina-Cuero

to concurrent 36-month terms of imprisonment, within the 33- to
41-month advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

On appeal, counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Mina-Cuero was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not filed one.

The Government declined to file a

brief.
Because Mina-Cuero did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for
plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th

Cir. 2002).

“To establish plain error, [Mina-Cuero] must show

that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the
error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Muhammad,
478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).

Even if Mina-Cuero satisfies

these requirements, “correction of the error remains within our
discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error
seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and
2

Appeal: 14-4775

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/27/2015

citation omitted).

Pg: 3 of 4

Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Mina-Cuero’s
guilty plea, which Mina-Cuero entered knowingly and voluntarily.
Turning to Mina-Cuero’s sentence, we review a sentence for
procedural

and

substantive

abuse of discretion standard.
51 (2007).

reasonableness

under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

We must first ensure that the district court did not

commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to
properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence.

Id.

If we find the

sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its substantive
reasonableness.

Id. at 328.

We presume on appeal that a sentence

within the properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable.
2014).

United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir.

Such a presumption is rebutted only when the defendant

shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,

379 (4th Cir. 2006).
Upon

review,

sentencing

error

we
by

discern

the

no

district

procedural
court.

The

or

substantive

district

court

correctly calculated Mina-Cuero’s advisory Guidelines range, heard
argument

from

counsel,

provided
3

Mina-Cuero

an

opportunity

to

Appeal: 14-4775

Doc: 42

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

allocute, and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

We

have reviewed the record and conclude that Mina-Cuero’s withinGuidelines

sentence

is

both

procedurally

and

substantively

reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

This court

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

If Mina-Cuero requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Mina-Cuero.
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