United States v. George Laloudakis, 4th Cir. (2012)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
GEORGE LALOUDAKIS,
Defendant Appellant,
and
BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00608-BEL-5)
Submitted:
January 31, 2012
Decided:
February 16, 2012
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marta K. Kahn, THE LAW OFFICE OF MARTA K. KAHN, LLC, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George
Laloudakis
pleaded
guilty
to
conspiracy
to
obstruct interstate commerce through robbery, in violation of 18

U.S.C. 1951 (2006); and use of a firearm in relation to a
crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18
U.S.C.
2,
924(c)
(2006).
The
district
court
sentenced
Laloudakis to a total of 117 months of imprisonment and he now

appeals.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Laloudakis argues that his guilty plea was
not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to

fully explain the nature of the charges against him, failed to
inform
him
accepting
of
the
the
statutory
stipulated
maximum
statement
sentences,
of
facts
factual basis for the firearm offense.
and
as
erred
in
sufficient
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
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
that there is an adequate factual basis for the plea.
Id.;
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
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).

Because Laloudakis did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error.
517,
525
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
2002).
To
establish
plain
error,
[Laloudakis] must show that an error occurred, that the error

was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
In the Rule 11 context, this means that [Laloudakis] must show
a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not
have entered the plea.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Moreover,
even
requirements
correction
of
if
the
Laloudakis
error
satisfies
remains
these
within
our
discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error

seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.
quotation
marks
and
Muhammad, 478 F.3d at 249 (internal
citation
omitted).
We
have
thoroughly
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
commit
plain
error
in
conducting
the
Rule
11
colloquy,
and
Laloudakis guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
Because Laloudakis is represented by counsel, we deny

4
his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. *
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Even were we to grant the motion to file a pro se

supplemental brief, our review of the proposed brief persuades
us that Laloudakis fails to articulate claims that would warrant
relief.

United States v. George Laloudakis, 4th Cir. (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. George Laloudakis, 4th Cir. (2012)

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. George Laloudakis, 4th Cir. (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

January 31, 2012

February 16, 2012

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marta K. Kahn, THE LAW OFFICE OF MARTA K. KAHN, LLC, Baltimore,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

obstruct interstate commerce through robbery, in violation of 18

Laloudakis to a total of 117 months of imprisonment and he now

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to

factual basis for the firearm offense.

guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant,

faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading

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

The court also must determine

that there is an adequate factual basis for the plea.

of guilt is entered into knowingly and voluntarily.

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

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

[Laloudakis] must show that an error occurred, that the error

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d

discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error

Muhammad, 478 F.3d at 249 (internal

Laloudakis guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

Because Laloudakis is represented by counsel, we deny

his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. *

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

Even were we to grant the motion to file a pro se

You might also like

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