US v. Taurino Mariano
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00007-MFU-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000009075].. [15-4452]
Appeal: 15-4452
Doc: 35
Filed: 01/24/2017
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)
Submitted:
January 12, 2017
Decided:
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4452
Doc: 35
Filed: 01/24/2017
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
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).
The
district court sentenced Mariano to 240 months’ imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Mariano’s
counsel
meritorious
has
grounds
filed
for
a
brief
appeal
but
certifying
there
questioning
are
whether
no
the
Government unconstitutionally filed an information pursuant to
21 U.S.C.
§ 851
(2012)
(“the
information”)
and
adequate factual basis supports Mariano’s plea.
whether
an
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
plain error.
Cir. 2014).
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
of,
and
determines
relinquishing
by
that
pleading
he
understands,
guilty,
the
the
charge
to
rights
which
he
is
he
is
pleading, and the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he
faces.
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.
2
Appeal: 15-4452
Doc: 35
Filed: 01/24/2017
Pg: 3 of 5
11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
A
knowing
and
voluntary
guilty
plea
“conclusively
establishes the elements of the offense and the material facts
necessary to support the conviction.”
992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993).
voluntarily
pled
guilty.
United States v. Willis,
Here, Mariano knowingly and
Moreover,
the
statement
of
facts
introduced at the plea hearing stated that Mariano personally
delivered over 500 grams of methamphetamine during the course of
the conspiracy.
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
Mariano’s plea.
Counsel
also
unconstitutional
Mariano
failed
questions
motives
to
in
object
whether
filing
to
the
court, we review for plain error.
the
the
Government
information.
information
in
the
had
Because
district
See United States v. Moore,
810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of
review).
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.”
United
States
v.
Sanchez,
517
F.3d
651,
671
(2d
Cir.
2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
3
Appeal: 15-4452
Doc: 35
Filed: 01/24/2017
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
was
motivated
prosecutorial
by
a
policy
discriminatory
with
a
purpose
discriminatory
to
adopt
effect”
a
(internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Mariano concedes that he lacks evidence to show that the
Government
had
information.
filing
the
an
unconstitutional
motive
in
filing
the
Moreover, the record reveals an adequate basis for
information
in
this
case
—
Mariano’s
convictions for controlled substance offenses.
numerous
Thus, we discern
no unconstitutional motives on the part of the Government.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Mariano, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
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
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Mariano.
4
Appeal: 15-4452
Doc: 35
Filed: 01/24/2017
Pg: 5 of 5
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
5
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?