US v. Carlos Soriano-Enriquez, No. 08-4577 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4577 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS DAVID SORIANO-ENRIQUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00136-JAB-4) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 16, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH AND FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlet Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos convictions for David Soriano-Enriquez conspiracy to appeals distribute from methamphetamine his and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and his resulting Soriano-Enriquez s 180-month attorney has sentence. filed appeal, Anders * an On brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but questioning whether Soriano-Enriquez s indictment was defective, plea was knowing and intelligent, and sentence was proper. Although informed of his right to do so, Soriano-Enriquez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) requires an indictment statement charged. to of be a the The plain, essential subject concise, facts and definite constituting indictment tracked the the written offense statutory language, cited the charging statute, and gave Soriano-Enriquez adequate notice of the crimes with which he Accordingly, the indictment was not defective. was charged. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 25 (4th Cir. 1990). Because Soriano-Enriquez did not move in the district court * to withdraw his guilty plea, any challenge Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 to the propriety of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, ensuring that Soriano-Enriquez s plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was an independent factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we find no error in the district court s acceptance of Soriano-Enriquez s plea. The district court sentenced Soriano-Enriquez to the statutory minimum on each count 120 months on the conspiracy charge and a 60-month consecutive sentence on the firearms charge. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006) (ten-year minimum sentence for methamphetamine offenses involving mixture); 18 500 U.S.C. grams or § 924(c)(1) year minimum sentence on firearm charge). more (2006) of a (five In the absence of a Government motion for a departure, the district court lacked authority minimum. Cir. to sentence Soriano-Enriquez below the statutory See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Soriano-Enriquez s convictions and sentence. 3 This court writing, of requires the that right to counsel inform petition the Soriano-Enriquez, Supreme Court of in the United States for further review. If Soriano-Enriquez 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 Soriano-Enriquez. 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.