Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    United States v. Faustino Soriano-Flores, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Faustino Soriano-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 135 months in prison. His attorney filed an Anders brief questioning whether the district court complied with Rule 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable. However, Soriano-Flores had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the district court complied with Rule 11 and the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of the sentence, based on the waiver.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Faustino Soriano-Flores, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    45 views5 pages
    Faustino Soriano-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 135 months in prison. His attorney filed an Anders brief questioning whether the district court complied with Rule 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable. However, Soriano-Flores had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the district court complied with Rule 11 and the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of the sentence, based on the waiver.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-05-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4447

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Faustino Soriano-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 135 months in prison. His attorney filed an Anders brief questioning whether the district court complied with Rule 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable. However, Soriano-Flores had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the district court complied with Rule 11 and the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of the sentence, based on the waiver.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    45 views5 pages

    United States v. Faustino Soriano-Flores, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Faustino Soriano-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 135 months in prison. His attorney filed an Anders brief questioning whether the district court complied with Rule 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable. However, Soriano-Flores had waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the district court complied with Rule 11 and the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of the sentence, based on the waiver.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-4447

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    FAUSTINO SORIANO-FLORES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (3:11-cr-00246-JFA-6)

    Submitted:

    April 22, 2013

    Decided:

    May 3, 2013

    Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam


    opinion.

    John E. Duncan, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant.


    Mark C. Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Faustino Soriano-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy
    to possess with intent to distribute and distribute marijuana,
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006).

    The district court

    sentenced Soriano-Flores to 135 months of imprisonment and he


    now appeals.

    Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether


    the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and
    whether Soriano-Flores sentence is reasonable.

    Soriano-Flores

    was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,


    but he has not done so.

    In addition, the Government has filed a

    motion to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver in the plea


    agreement.

    We previously deferred ruling on that motion pending

    the filing of the parties briefs.

    For the reasons that follow,

    we affirm the conviction and dismiss Soriano-Flores appeal of


    his sentence.
    Counsel

    first

    complied with Rule 11.

    questions

    whether

    the

    district

    court

    The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is

    to ensure that the plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and


    voluntarily.

    See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).

    Accordingly, prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court,


    through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant
    of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges
    to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the
    2

    maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is


    relinquishing by pleading guilty.

    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b).

    The

    court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for


    the plea.

    Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th

    Cir. 1991).

    As Soriano-Flores did not move in the district

    court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11


    hearing is reviewed for plain error.

    United States v. Martinez,

    277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).


    Moreover, pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant
    may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. 3742 (2006).
    United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).

    waiver will preclude appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is


    valid and the issue is within the scope of the waiver.
    States

    v.

    question

    Blick,

    of

    408

    whether

    F.3d

    162,

    defendant

    168

    (4th

    validly

    Cir.

    waived

    United

    2005).
    his

    The

    right

    to

    appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.


    Id. at 168.
    The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether
    the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the
    right to appeal.

    Id. at 169 (citation omitted).

    To determine

    whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine the


    totality

    of

    the

    circumstances,

    including

    the

    experience

    and

    conduct of the accused, as well as the accuseds educational


    background

    and

    familiarity

    with
    3

    the

    terms

    of

    the

    plea

    agreement.
    Cir.

    United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th

    2002)

    (internal

    quotation

    marks

    and

    citation

    omitted).

    Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant


    regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Rule 11
    colloquy,

    the

    waiver

    is

    both

    valid

    and

    enforceable.

    United

    States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United
    States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).
    We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
    that the district court fully complied with the requirements of
    Rule 11.

    We further conclude that Soriano-Flores guilty plea

    and waiver of his appellate rights was knowing, intelligent, and


    voluntary.

    As

    the

    appellate

    waiver

    included

    Soriano-Flores

    right to appeal any sentence below life imprisonment, he has


    waived appellate review of his sentence.
    We have examined the entire record in accordance with
    the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
    for appeal.
    Governments

    Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, grant the


    motion

    to

    dismiss

    in

    Soriano-Flores appeal of his sentence.

    part,

    and

    dismiss

    This court requires

    that counsel inform Soriano-Flores, in writing, of the right to


    petition

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    the

    United

    States

    for

    further

    review.

    If Soriano-Flores 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
    4

    representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Soriano-Flores.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART

    You might also like