US v. Victor Hugo Cruz-Cortez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00113-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999631839].. [15-4034]
Appeal: 15-4034
Doc: 29
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR HUGO CRUZ-CORTEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00113-JRS-1)
Submitted:
July 20, 2015
Decided:
July 31, 2015
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4034
Doc: 29
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Victor
Hugo
Cruz-Cortez
(Cruz)
pled
guilty
to
illegal
reentry after having been removed following conviction for an
aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2012),
and
On appeal,
was
counsel
California,
386
meritorious
issues
sentenced
has
U.S.
filed
738
for
to
months’
brief
a
41
pursuant
(1967),
appeal,
stating
but
that
raising
as
imprisonment.
to
Anders
there
an
are
issue
v.
no
for
review whether Cruz’s guilty plea is valid when there is no
recording of the guilty plea hearing.
Cruz 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.
In this case, the magistrate judge conducted the guilty
plea colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and recommended
that the district court adopt its acceptance of Cruz’s guilty
plea.
Cruz,
magistrate
however,
judge’s
report
review of this issue.
Schronce,
727
F.2d
believe . . . that
failed
and
to
has
file
objections
therefore
waived
to
the
appellate
Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); United States v.
91,
the
93–94
(4th
[Federal
Cir.
1984)
Magistrates]
(“We
Act
do
not
can
be
interpreted to permit a party . . . to ignore his right to file
objections with the district court without imperiling his right
to raise the objections in the circuit court of appeals.”).
2
Appeal: 15-4034
Doc: 29
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
Moreover, the challenge fails on the merits.
failed
to
challenge
the
validity
of
his
guilty
Because Cruz
plea
in
the
district court on the basis he now advances, our review is for
plain error only.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-36 (2009); United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002).
To establish plain error,
Cruz must demonstrate that an error was made, the error was
plain,
and
the
error
affected
his
substantial
rights.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-343 (4th Cir.
2009).
In the guilty plea context, 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 Rule 11 omission.
Id.
Although the absence in this case of a recording of the
guilty plea proceeding * constitutes a plain error by the district
court, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (2012); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(g);
United
States
United States
v.
v.
Hanno,
Gillis,
21
F.3d
42,
773
F.2d
549,
48
554
(4th
(4th
Cir.
1994);
Cir.
1985);
United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1530 (6th Cir. 1985);
Herron
v.
United
States,
512
F.2d
439,
441
(4th
Cir.
1975)
(per curiam), the error did not affect Cruz’s substantial rights
*
The guilty plea proceeding was recorded, but, as a result
of mechanical problems with the recording, no transcript of the
proceeding is available.
3
Appeal: 15-4034
because
Doc: 29
Cruz
Filed: 07/31/2015
does
not
Pg: 4 of 4
suggest
—
and
the
record
contains
no
indication that — but for the district court’s plain error, Cruz
would not have entered his guilty plea.
Cruz thus fails to
establish plain error rendering his guilty plea invalid.
In
accordance
remainder
of
the
with
Anders,
record
in
meritorious issues for appeal.
court’s judgment.
we
this
also
case
have
and
reviewed
have
the
found
no
We therefore affirm the district
This court requires that counsel inform Cruz,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Cruz
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 representation.
Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Cruz.
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
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?