United States of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , brief

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUIS F. ROBLEDO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cr-00405-GRA)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Luis F. Robledo appeals his conviction and sentence
imposed for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine after pleading guilty. Counsel has
filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief and
Robledo has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government
elected not to file a reply brief. Counsel raises issues of
whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was complied with in accepting the
factual basis for Robledo’s plea and whether his sentence was
reasonable. We affirm.
Because Robledo did not move in district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, 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, 524-25 (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 various other rights, so it is
clear that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his
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). Our
review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that the district
court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured that

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
Robledo’s plea was supported by an adequate factual basis and was
both knowing and voluntary.
This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61
(2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate
guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. United
States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. Davenport,
445 F.3d at 370. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006). If a court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range,
it must state its reasons for doing so. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546.
Because the district court adequately explained the basis for its
sentencing decision, taking into consideration Robledo’s arguments,
we conclude that the resulting 51-month sentence was reasonable.
See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. July 21,
2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457. Accordingly, we
affirm Robledo’s sentence.

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Robledo’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client.
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 of 4 --