US v. Ramiro Calixtro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00068-F-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000043196]. [16-4315]

Appeal: 16-4315

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4315

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAMIRO CALIXTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00068-F-3)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA & STROUD LAW GROUP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4315

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ramiro Calixtro appeals from his criminal judgment after he
pleaded

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

possess

with

intent

to

distribute cocaine.

He received the statutory minimum 60-month

sentence.

Counsel

has

California,

386

meritorious

grounds

U.S.

filed

738
for

a

brief

(1967),
appeal

pursuant

stating

but

to

that

Anders v.

there

questioning

are

whether

no
the

district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea.
file a brief.

The Government declined to

After careful review, we affirm.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a court must conduct a
plea

colloquy

in

which

it

informs

the

defendant

of,

and

determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the
charge

to

which

he

is

pleading

guilty,

the

maximum

possible

penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by
pleading guilty.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v.

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
also

must

ensure

that

the

defendant’s

The district court
plea

is

voluntary,

supported by a sufficient factual basis, and not the result of
force, threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)-(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20.
Because Calixtro did not move to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation of
Rule 11 error, we review the plea colloquy for plain error.
2

Appeal: 16-4315

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).

“To

prevail on a claim of plain error, [Calixtro] must demonstrate
not only that the district court plainly erred, but also that
this error affected his substantial rights.”

Id. at 816.

In

the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes that an error
affected his substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable
probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the
error.

Id.

The

record

sufficient
that,

reveals

plea

although

that

colloquy
the

court

the

with

district

Calixtro.

expressly

court
The

stated

conducted

only

that

a

error

was

plea

was

the

supported by an independent factual basis, it did not develop it
on the record.

However, neither Calixtro nor the record suggest

that,

the

but

for

Therefore

his

error,

he

would

substantial

not

rights

have
were

pleaded
not

guilty.

affected.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
plainly err in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea.

Calixtro filed

a pro se brief stating that he did not wish to withdraw his
guilty plea and that he only requested review of his mandatory
minimum sentence.

There was no reversible error in the sentence

calculation or imposition.
reviewed

the

entire

record

In accordance with Anders, we have
in

meritorious issues for appeal.
conviction

and

sentence.

this

case

and

have

found

no

We therefore affirm Calixtro’s

This
3

court

requires

that

counsel

Appeal: 16-4315

inform

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/16/2017

Calixtro,

in

Supreme

Court

of

the

writing,
United

Pg: 4 of 4

of

the

States

right

for

to

further

petition

the

review.

If

Calixtro requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Calixtro.
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

4