US v. Juan Garcia, No. 12-4710 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4710 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN JOSE JAIMES GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00023-MR-DLH-2) Submitted: May 13, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Auman, AUMAN for Appellant. William Attorney, Charlotte, Assistant United States Appellee. LAW OFFICES, Asheville, North Carolina, Michael Miller, Assistant United States North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Jose Jaimes Garcia appeals his conviction and sentence of 135 months of imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Garcia challenges the district court s enhancement of his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1 (2011) and argues that his due process rights were violated by the fact that his Guidelines range and sentence were not determined in conjunction with the entry of his plea. The Government has moved the to dismiss the appeal pursuant to terms appellate waiver contained in Garcia s plea agreement. of the We grant the Government s motion in part, dismiss Garcia s appeal of his sentence, and affirm Garcia s conviction. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). A valid waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue is within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). The validity of an appellate waiver is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal. Id. at 169. This determination, often made 2 based on the sufficiency of the plea colloquy and whether the district court questioned the defendant about the appeal waiver, ultimately turns circumstances. particular on Id. facts including the accused. an Id. evaluation of the totality of the These circumstances include all of the and circumstances background, surrounding experience, and [the] conduct case, of the (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Garcia s plea and expressly confirmed that Garcia understood the impact his appellate waiver would have on his right to contest his conviction and sentence. that his waiver is invalid because he Garcia argues expressed momentary confusion and needed to confer with counsel at several points during his Rule 11 hearing. Because, however, Garcia confirmed that each of his brief conferences with counsel dispelled any misunderstanding, we find that Garcia s plea was knowing and voluntary and that his waiver is enforceable. The right to waiver s appeal his broad language conviction exceptions not applicable here. Garcia s claims on appeal fall and relinquishes sentence, Garcia s subject to Accordingly, the majority of within its scope; Garcia s due process those that arguably do not are unavailing. First, we construe claim as questioning the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea, which 3 brings it outside the scope of his appellate waiver. A guilty plea is not rendered invalid by the fact that a defendant s exact sentence or Guidelines range remains unknown to him when he enters his plea. indeterminate and See United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1991) (collecting cases and explaining that there is no requirement that the court determine and inform the defendant of the applicable Guidelines range before accepting his guilty plea); see also United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002) (the Constitution does not require that a defendant be apprised with exacting specificity of the consequences of his guilty plea). Because Garcia has not produced authority supporting his contrary position, he fails to show error in the acceptance of his plea. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). To either on the due extent process that Garcia grounds or challenges on the his basis sentence, that his Guidelines range was improperly calculated, such arguments are clearly barred by the waiver. F.3d 532, (2012). 537-40 (4th Cir.), United States v. Thornsbury, 670 cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 196 Garcia does not contend otherwise, and we therefore grant the Government s motion to dismiss Garcia s appeal of his sentence. 4 Accordingly, we grant in part the Government s motion to dismiss, dismiss Garcia s appeal of his sentence, and affirm Garcia s conviction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
