US v. Noe Ordonez-Medina, No. 10-4476 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4476 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOE DE JESUS ORDONEZ-MEDINA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00387-RLW-1) Submitted: October 25, 2010 Decided: November 9, 2010 Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Virginia, for Appellee. S. David Richmond, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Noe de Jesus Ordonez-Medina appeals his conviction and forty-six convicted month of sentence an for aggravated § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). illegal felony, reentry in after violation of 8 being U.S.C. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions, however, whether the district court erred in enhancing OrdonezMedina s sentence based on his status as an alien whose removal was subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. Despite being advised of his right to do so, Ordonez-Medina has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the Anders brief, counsel argues that Form I-294 failed to punishment aggravated specifically for advise illegal felony. Ordonez-Medina reentry Counsel also of the after conviction argues that the enhanced for an Government waived its right to prosecute Ordonez-Medina under the enhanced provision set forth in § 1326(b)(2) because it failed to criminally prosecute him under this provision at the time of his 2005 deportation. To the extent that counsel raises challenges to Ordonez-Medina s conviction, we conclude that such arguments are waived. When a defendant enters a voluntary plea of guilty, he waives his right to challenge antecedent, nonjurisdictional 2 errors not guilt. logically See Menna inconsistent v. New York, with 423 the U.S. establishment 61, 62-63 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). of (1975); Because our review of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy reveals that OrdonezMedina s guilty plea was both knowing and voluntary, he has waived appellate review of these issues. To the extent that counsel asserts a sentencing error and argues that the district court erred in imposing a sixteenlevel enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) argument lacks merit. applying an abuse States, 552 U.S. consideration reasonableness of district court discretion 38, both a we conclude that this We review a sentence for reasonableness, of of (2009), 51 (2007). the This procedural sentence. properly standard. Id. calculated We the Gall v. review and assess advisory United requires substantive whether the guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). there is no procedural error, we review the If substantive reasonableness of the sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its 3 discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). v. If the sentence is within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. (2007) (upholding Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 presumption of reasonableness for within- guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence reasonable. guidelines both procedurally and substantively The district court properly calculated the advisory range, enhancement is and pursuant correctly to USSG imposed the sixteen-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that [i]f the defendant previously was deported, or unlawfully remained in the United States, after . . . a conviction for a felony that is . . . a crime of violence . . . increase by 16 levels ). The district court also properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, and adequately explained the reasons for its chosen sentence. Moreover, Ordonez-Medina has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness we accord his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and found no meritorious issues on appeal. 4 We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. counsel s motion to withdraw. At this juncture, we deny 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 expressed in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.