US v. Martin Villanueva-Balcazar, No. 08-4697 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4697 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARTIN VILLANUEVA-BALCAZAR, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00378-NCT-1) Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., MERRITT, FLEBOTTE, WILSON, WEBB & CARUSO, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martin Villanueva-Balcazar pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 Villanueva-Balcazar s (2006). The Guidelines district range at 87 court to calculated 108 months imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007), and sentenced him to 98 months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Villanueva-Balcazar s the district guilty plea. court erred in accepting Villanueva-Balcazar was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. Contrary to counsel s suggestion, Villanueva-Balcazar did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Villanueva-Balcazar s guilty plea and that 2 the court s omissions did not affect his substantial rights. Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Villanueva-Balcazar voluntarily with States See United v. (4th Cir. 1991). district the plea understanding an entered of the DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, knowingly and consequences. 116, 119-20 Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the court s acceptance of Villanueva-Balcazar s guilty plea. We review deferential Villanueva-Balcazar s abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). must first ensure that sentence standard. Gall under v. a United In conducting this review, we the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at 51. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). 3 The court must also state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence, id., but, [w]hen imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, . . . the [court s] explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many approximately ways two tailored to decades of the individual and reflect attention to federal close sentencing policy, United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then consider the tak[ing] into substantive account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. reasonableness the totality of of the the sentence, circumstances. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). In this case, the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines Villanueva-Balcazar s Villanueva-Balcazar. range counsel The court and heard and made argument allocution an from from individualized assessment of the sentencing factors before it, and counsel and Villanueva-Balcazar fail to overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded the within-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. 4 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Villanueva-Balcazar, in writing, United of the States right for to petition further review. the Supreme If Court of the Villanueva-Balcazar 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. motion must state Villanueva-Balcazar. facts and materials legal before that a copy thereof was Counsel s served on We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
