US v. Eliseo Mendiola
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00161-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4208]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
March 14, 2017
Before FLOYD and
March 16, 2017
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
He was sentenced to 151 months in prison.
Trial counsel did not seek to ascertain the identities of
the confidential informants, nor did she request any background
information regarding the informants.
Counsel did not contest
contend that she was unable to prepare for the hearing; and she
believed that she had not been given sufficient information.
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).
plain error standard, Mendiola must show that: (1) there was
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
court may exercise its discretion to notice the error only
if the error “seriously
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.
information on the confidential informants that she utilized in
cross-examination, and she did not suggest otherwise.
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
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.
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?