United States v. Chavez, 4th Cir. (2007)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURO SOTO CHAVEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00002-ALL)
Submitted:
August 23, 2007
Decided:
August 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP AND WINTHROP, Statesville, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mauro Soto Chavez appeals his convictions and the 180month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000), and one
count
of
possession
of
firearm
in
furtherance
of
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2000).
drug
On
appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which he states there

are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting the
guilty plea, and whether the sentence was required.
In a pro se
supplemental brief, Chavez asserts that the district court erred in

concluding that it did not have authority to impose a variance
sentence,
and
established.
that
the
factual
basis
for
his
plea
was
not
We affirm.
Chavez did not move in the district court to withdraw his

guilty plea, therefore this court reviews his challenge to the
adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
Prior to
accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the defendant
understands the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory
minimum and maximum sentences, and other various rights, so it is
clear that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

- 2 -
plea.
The court must also determine whether there is a factual
basis for the plea.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1), (3); United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
Counsel
does not specify any deficiencies in the district courts Rule 11

inquiry, and our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that
the court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured
Chavezs plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily.
We review a district courts sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
In
this case, the drug conspiracy count carried a statutory mandatory

minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment; the firearm count
carried a minimum five year term of imprisonment that must be
imposed consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.
See
21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(I),

(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2000).
The district court correctly noted that it
was without authority to impose the requested variance sentence, as

we have recognized that, even after United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), [e]xcept upon motion of the Government on the
basis of substantial assistance, a district court may not depart
below a statutory minimum.
850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d

In this case, Chavez was sentenced to
the statutory minimums applicable to the charges to which he

pleaded guilty, and we conclude that his sentence is reasonable.
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We have
considered the arguments asserted in Chavezs pro se supplemental

brief and find them to be without merit.
Chavezs convictions and sentence.
We therefore affirm
This court requires that
counsel inform Chavez, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Chavez
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.
Counsels motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Chavez.

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
- 4 -

United States v. Chavez, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Chavez, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Chavez, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

August 23, 2007

August 28, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP AND WINTHROP, Statesville, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2000).

appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which he states there

supplemental brief, Chavez asserts that the district court erred in

Chavez did not move in the district court to withdraw his

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

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

The court must also determine whether there is a factual

basis for the plea.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1), (3); United

does not specify any deficiencies in the district courts Rule 11

this case, the drug conspiracy count carried a statutory mandatory

21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(I),

The district court correctly noted that it

was without authority to impose the requested variance sentence, as

United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d

the statutory minimums applicable to the charges to which he

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

considered the arguments asserted in Chavezs pro se supplemental

This court requires that

counsel inform Chavez, in writing, of the right to petition the

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

Counsels motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Chavez.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.