US v. Mario Garcia, No. 13-4271 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARIO ALBERTO GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00765-TLW-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Y. Chapman, DEBRA CHAPMAN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario Alberto Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of five kilograms or more of powder cocaine, fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, 200-month and a quantity sentence. On of appeal, marijuana. counsel He has received filed a a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issues: (1) whether the district court suggested to Garcia offense that during (2) whether the he was the pleading Fed. court R. erred guilty Crim. in to P. a 11 applying pro se supplemental brief. response. included proceeding; an having an aggravated role in the offense. lesser and enhancement for Garcia has filed a The Government declined to file a We affirm. Because Garcia did not move to withdraw his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. The district court conducted the change of plea hearing for Garcia and Garcia s codefendant, Mr. Ramirez. At one instance, the court referred to Mr. Ramirez as Mr. Garcia. lesser included offense. Ramirez was pleading guilty to a Therefore, Garcia contends he was confused regarding the charge to which he was pleading guilty. Although the district court referred to Ramirez as Garcia one 2 single time, the transcript clearly indicates that the proper charge was given to Garcia and that he understood the charge to which he was pleading guilty. Further, Garcia does not argue that he would have withdrawn his plea had he fully understood that he was not pleading guilty to a lesser included offense. Given no Garcia s indication plea was final and binding. to the knowing contrary, and we therefore voluntary, and, find that consequently, See United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Counsel next raises whether the district court erred in applying Guidelines a three-level Manual supervisor. enhancement § 3B1.1(b) (2010) under for U.S. being a Sentencing manager or We review a district court s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). A defendant qualifies for a three-level enhancement if he was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. USSG § 3B1.1(b). To qualify as a manager or supervisor, the defendant need only have exercised control over determining one a participant. defendant s USSG leadership consider seven factors: 3 § 3B1.1, role, cmt. a n.2. court In should the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4; see also United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude that the district court did not err in assessing a three-level enhancement for Garcia s role in the conspiracy. First, the evidence clearly showed that the criminal activity involved at least five people named in the conspiracy, plus numerous unnamed individuals and was extensive. The evidence also showed several participants. that Garcia exercised control over The court found that Garcia exercised decision-making authority by directing others to deliver drugs, to protect Garcia, and to protect and operate drug houses. Garcia filed a supplemental brief arguing that the two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) should not have applied, that his statutory mandatory minimum was improperly increased, in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155, 2163-64 (2013) (holding that any fact that increases the statutory mandatory minimum is an element of the offense and must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt), and that counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a sentence reduction based on 4 substantial assistance to the Government. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed these issues and the record in this case, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Garcia s conviction and sentence. We This court requires that counsel inform Garcia, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Garcia Court of requests the that United a States petition for be further 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 Garcia. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
