US v. Francis Villeda-Fuentes
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cr-00035-FDW-DCK-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4543]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
FRANCIS OLIVERIO VILLEDA-FUENTES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cr-00035-FDW-DCK-2)
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie Carter Rawls, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Francis Oliverio Villeda-Fuentes pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2012). The
district court sentenced Villeda-Fuentes to 92 months’ imprisonment, a sentence within the
applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Although notified of his right to do so, Villeda-Fuentes has not filed a pro se brief. After
careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm.
Before accepting Villeda-Fuentes’ guilty plea, the magistrate judge conducted a
thorough plea colloquy, substantially complying with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 and ensuring that Villeda-Fuentes’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an
independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
Further, we discern no procedural error in the sentencing process, see Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Villeda-Fuentes does not rebut the presumption that his withinGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Villeda-Fuentes’ conviction
and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Villeda-Fuentes, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If VilledaFuentes 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.
Pg: 3 of 3
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Villeda-Fuentes. 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
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?