US v. Eliseo Mendiola

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00161-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000043201]. [16-4208]

Appeal: 16-4208

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELISEO GANDARILLA MENDIOLA, a/k/a Chao,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00161-D-1)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 16, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cindy H. Popkin-Bradley, CINDY H. POPKIN-BRADLEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States
Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4208

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eliseo
agreement

Gandarilla
to

distributing

distribute cocaine.
On

appeal,

of

and

guilty

possessing

argues

information

violated

pled

without
with

a

plea

intent

to

He was sentenced to 151 months in prison.

Mendiola

consideration
sentencing

Mendiola

that

from

Mendiola’s

the

district

confidential

rights

to

court’s

informants
process.

due

at
We

affirm.
Trial counsel did not seek to ascertain the identities of
the confidential informants, nor did she request any background
information regarding the informants.
the

reliability

of

the

informants’

Counsel did not contest
statements;

she

did

not

contend that she was unable to prepare for the hearing; and she
provided

no

reason

to

believe

that

she

even

subjectively

believed that she had not been given sufficient information.
Accordingly,

our

review

is

for

plain

error.

See

States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).

United

Under the

plain error standard, Mendiola must show that: (1) there was
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
substantial

rights.

732-34 (1993).
this

Even

United

States

when these

v.

Olano,

conditions

507
are

U.S.

725,

satisfied,

court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only

if the error “seriously

affect[s]

2

the

fairness,

integrity

Appeal: 16-4208

or

Doc: 39

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

Id. at 736

(internal quotation marks omitted).
We find that Mendiola has failed to show plain error.
record

demonstrates

that

trial

counsel

had

The

significant

information on the confidential informants that she utilized in
cross-examination, and she did not suggest otherwise.

Further,

the record provides no reason to conclude either that a request
for further information would have been granted or that, had
such a request been granted, the information would have altered
Mendiola’s sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm.

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