US v. Enrique Castillo-Felipe, No. 10-4934 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ENRIQUE CASTILLO-FELIPE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00045-HFF-1) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Enrique Castillo-Felipe pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry by a deported felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). be imprisoned for a term The district court sentenced him to of forty-six months. On appeal, Castillo-Felipe s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she states that she finds no meritorious issues issues to our attention: for appeal. Counsel calls two (1) whether the district court fully complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in taking Castillo-Felipe s guilty plea; and (2) whether Castillo-Felipe s sentence was unreasonable. response. The Government elected to file no Castillo-Felipe was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Castillo-Felipe has no valid claim to relief. Because Castillo- Felipe did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Castillo-Felipe] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d Even if Castillo-Felipe satisfies these requirements, correction of the error remains within [the 2 Court s] discretion, which [the Court] should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court failed to inform Castillo-Felipe that it would consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) in determining his sentence or that he had the right to appointed counsel and to have counsel present at every stage of the proceeding. These errors do not rise to the level of plain error in this case because the record does not evidence a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, CastilloFelipe would not have entered his plea of guilty. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). We review a district court s imposition of a sentence under a United deferential States, within-Guidelines reasonableness. Cir. 2007). 552 abuse U.S. sentence of discretion 38, 51 is standard. (2007). afforded Gall v. Castillo-Felipe s a presumption of United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th We have found nothing in the record to rebut that presumption. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Castillo-Felipe s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 3 inform Castillo-Felipe, in writing, of the right to petition United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but the Supreme Court of the If Castillo-Felipe requests 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 Castillo-Felipe. 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.
