US v. Pedro Maldonado-Sanchez


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999899732-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00072-RLV-DSC-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948098].. [16-4203]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4203 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PEDRO MALDONADO-SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-RLV-DSC-3) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4203 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Pedro Maldonado-Sanchez following his guilty plea appeals to the conspiracy judgment to imposed distribute and possess with intent cocaine and money laundering conspiracy. On appeal, Maldonado-Sanchez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Maldonado-Sanchez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did Maldonado-Sanchez. 232, 242 discern (4th no not abuse its discretion in sentencing See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d Cir. 2016) procedural (stating sentencing standard error, see of review). Gall v. We United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Maldonado-Sanchez has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Additionally, we have reviewed the guilty plea colloquy and find that Maldonado-Sanchez’s plea was both knowing and voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. United (noting States plea v. Sanya, colloquy 774 is F.3d 812, reviewed 2 for 813 (4th plain See Cir. 2014) error where Appeal: 16-4203 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty plea); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform Maldonado-Sanchez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Maldonado-Sanchez requests that the petition be filed, If 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 Maldonado-Sanchez. 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 3

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?