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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000043201]. [16-4208]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4208 Doc: 39 Filed: 03/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4208 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ELISEO GANDARILLA MENDIOLA, a/k/a Chao,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 HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 16, 2017 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?