US v. Rolando Yepez, No. 10-4194 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4194 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROLANDO VERDINES YEPEZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00612-CMC-1) Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rolando Verdines Yepez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and improper entry by an illegal alien. The district court sentenced him to 150 months on the drug charge and 6 months on the improper entry charge, to be served concurrently. Yepez s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the guilty plea reasonable. was valid and whether Yepez s sentence was Yepez was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Yepez s guilty plea. The court ensured that Yepez understood the charges against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent 2 factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Yepez s conviction. We have also reviewed Yepez s sentence and determined that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Yepez, appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, This of court the right requires to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Yepez, Court of in the If Yepez 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 Yepez. 3 We dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
