US v. Taurino Mariano
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00007-MFU-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4452]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TAURINO ALONSO MARIANO, a/k/a Taurino M. Alonso, a/k/a
Santana Augustine Santana, a/k/a Al Gonsales, a/k/a Carlos
Gonzales, a/k/a Pedro Jaimes, a/k/a Juan Dedios Ocampos,
a/k/a Juan Delos Campos, a/k/a Aldo Hernandez Gonzalez,
a/k/a M. Taurino, a/k/a Laureano Alonso Mariano,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00007-MFU-2)
January 12, 2017
January 24, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abram J. Pafford, THE PAFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC, Lynchburg,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Taurino Alonso Mariano pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
district court sentenced Mariano to 240 months’ imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Government unconstitutionally filed an information pursuant to
adequate factual basis supports Mariano’s plea.
We affirm the
district court’s judgment.
Because Mariano did not move to withdraw his guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th
Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court
must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant
pleading, and the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court also must ensure that
the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or
promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P.
Pg: 3 of 5
11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
establishes the elements of the offense and the material facts
necessary to support the conviction.”
992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Willis,
Here, Mariano knowingly and
introduced at the plea hearing stated that Mariano personally
delivered over 500 grams of methamphetamine during the course of
See United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 367
(4th Cir. 2008).
Thus, we conclude the district court did not
plainly err in finding that a sufficient factual basis supports
court, we review for plain error.
See United States v. Moore,
810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of
To challenge the Government’s decision to file the
information, Mariano “must present at least some evidence to
show not only that he was singled out but also that he was
singled out for reasons that are invidious or in bad faith.”
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
Pg: 4 of 5
Venable, 666 F.3d 893, 900 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that to
raise a selective prosecution claim, “a criminal defendant must
present clear evidence . . . demonstrating that the government
quotation marks omitted)).
Mariano concedes that he lacks evidence to show that the
Moreover, the record reveals an adequate basis for
convictions for controlled substance offenses.
Thus, we discern
no unconstitutional motives on the part of the Government.
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
This court requires that counsel inform Mariano, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Mariano 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
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Mariano.
Pg: 5 of 5
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?