US v. Luis Villeda

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00556-JMC-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802862]. [15-4417]

Appeal: 15-4417

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS CASTRO VILLEDA, a/k/a Luis Herierto Villeda,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cr-00556-JMC-3)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4417

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Luis Castro Villeda appeals his conviction and the 360month

sentence

imposed

after

he

pled

guilty,

without

a

plea

agreement, to one count of conspiracy to kidnap another person
and transport him across state lines, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1201 (2012).

Villeda’s attorney filed a brief, pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the district
court’s

compliance

reasonableness
review.
despite

of

with

Fed.

Villeda’s

R.

Crim.

sentence

as

P.

11

possible

and
issues

the
for

Villeda has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
receiving

notice

of

his

right

to

do

so,

Government has declined to file a responsive brief.

and

the

Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.
Because

Villeda

did

not

move

in

the

district

court

to

withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002).
defendant must show:

To demonstrate plain error, a

(1) there was error; (2) the error was

plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.

See

United States v. McLaurin, 764 F.3d 372, 388 (4th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1842 (2015).
guilty

plea

context,

a

defendant

satisfies

this

In the

burden

by

showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
2

Appeal: 15-4417

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions.

United

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

“Even

when this burden is met, we have discretion whether to recognize
the

error,

and

should

not

do

so

unless

the

error

seriously

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.”

United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 611 (4th

Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of Villeda’s plea hearing leads us to conclude
that the district court complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting
reveals

that

supported
entered

Villeda’s

by
the

the
an

guilty

plea.

district

court

independent

plea

Critically,
ensured

basis

knowingly

in

and

understanding of the consequences.

the

that

fact

transcript

the

and

plea

that

voluntarily,

was

Villeda

with

an

United States v. DeFusco,

949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we discern

no error in the district court’s acceptance of Villeda’s guilty
plea.
Although we review Villeda’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying
States,

an
552

abuse-of-discretion
U.S.

38,

46

standard,

(2007),

we

see

review

structural sentencing errors for plain error.

Gall

v.

United

unpreserved,

non-

See United States

v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review

requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
3

We first

Appeal: 15-4417

Doc: 39

assess

Filed: 04/25/2016

whether

the

district

Pg: 4 of 5

court

properly

calculated

the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the factors set
forth

in

18

presented

by

U.S.C.
the

selected sentence.
575–76.

§ 3553(a)
parties,

(2012),
and

analyzed

sufficiently

any

arguments

explained

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at

If we find no procedural error, we review the sentence

for substantive reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]”

United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
a

properly

calculated

“Any sentence that is within or below
Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We

conclude

substantively
calculated

that

Villeda’s

reasonable.

Villeda’s

sentence

The

Guidelines

is

district

range,

procedurally
court

listened

to

and

correctly
counsel’s

arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the
360-month sentence.

Further, Villeda offers nothing to rebut

the presumption of substantive reasonableness this court affords
his within-Guidelines sentence.

We thus conclude that Villeda’s

sentence is reasonable.

4

Appeal: 15-4417

Doc: 39

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires counsel to inform Villeda, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

Villeda

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Villeda.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5