US v. Aldo Enamorado-Ramirez, No. 10-4548 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4548 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALDO ENAMORADO-RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-00064-GRA-1) Submitted: March 23, 2011 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 11, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aldo pursuant to Enamorado-Ramirez guilty a appeals possession plea, for his conviction, with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1) speaking defendant (2006). who Enamorado-Ramirez, used a translator a Spanish- during court proceedings, argues that the district court violated his rights by relying on written documents and representations of counsel rather than addressing him directly during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. Because his substantial rights were not thereby affected, we affirm. Enamorado-Ramirez did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. Thus, we review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [he] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and the error affected Muhammad, 478 his F.3d substantial 247, 249 rights. (4th Cir. United 2007). States Even when v. a defendant meets these three criteria, we may exercise [our] discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, proceedings. integrity or public reputation of judicial United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009)). 2 Here, addressing him Enamorado-Ramirez personally, the complains district that, court rather relied than on the contents of a completed Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty, along with the representations of defense counsel, to establish that his plea was knowing and voluntary. that Enamorado-Ramirez communicated The record reveals with the district court through an interpreter and that he assured the court that he understood the nature of the proceedings, the rights he waived and the penalties he attorney s performance. faced, and was satisfied with his See United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1,8 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that district court s use of written document, in conjunction with colloquy with defendant, satisfied Rule 11). alert the district Enamorado-Ramirez had ample opportunity to court to any misunderstanding of or disagreement with the terms of his plea but did not do so. Moreover, he admitted that the facts proffered by the Government supported his guilty plea. Enamorado-Ramirez has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have insisted upon a trial if the district court itself had summarized the Petition. See United States v. Hairston, 522 F.3d 336, 341 (4th Cir. 2008) (discussing factors courts consider in determining whether defendant s substantial rights were affected). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
