US v. Pedro Maldonado-Sanchez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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