United States of America v. Enrique Castillo-Felipe

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4934
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE CASTILLO-FELIPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:10-cr-00045-HFF-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Castillo-Felipe pleaded guilty to one count of
illegal reentry by a deported felon in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced him to
be imprisoned for a term of forty-six months. On appeal,
Castillo-Felipe’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she states that she
finds no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel calls two
issues to our attention: (1) whether the district court fully
complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in taking
Castillo-Felipe’s guilty plea; and (2) whether Castillo-Felipe’s
sentence was unreasonable. The Government elected to file no
response. Castillo-Felipe was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Castillo-Felipe has no valid claim to relief. Because Castillo-
Felipe did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty
plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). “To
establish plain error, [Castillo-Felipe] 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). Even if Castillo-Felipe satisfies
these requirements, “correction of the error remains within [the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Court’s] discretion, which [the Court] should not exercise . . .
unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court failed to inform Castillo-Felipe
that it would consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) in determining his sentence or that he had the
right to appointed counsel and to have counsel present at every
stage of the proceeding. These errors do not rise to the level
of plain error in this case because the record does not evidence
a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, Castillo-
Felipe would not have entered his plea of guilty. United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
We review a district court’s imposition of a sentence
under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Castillo-Felipe’s
within-Guidelines sentence is afforded a presumption of
reasonableness. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007). We have found nothing in the record to rebut that
presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Castillo-Felipe’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Castillo-Felipe, in

-- 3 of 4 --

4
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Castillo-Felipe 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 Castillo-Felipe.
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 --