US v. Meliton Hernandez, No. 14-4022 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELITON ALONZO HERNANDEZ, a/k/a El Chino, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00705-HMH-1) Submitted: July 18, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Meliton with a written distribute Alonzo plea Hernandez agreement methamphetamine, to 21 pled guilty possession U.S.C. in accordance with §§ 841(a)(1), intent to (b)(1)(C) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). He was sentenced to twenty-four months for the drug offense and sixty months, consecutive, for the firearm offense. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the validity of the guilty plea concluding and that the there reasonableness are no of meritorious the issues sentence for but appeal. Hernandez has filed a pro se brief raising additional issues. We affirm. After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Hernandez stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was thirty-five and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He said that he was completely satisfied with his attorney s services. Hernandez admitted his guilt, and he agreed that the summary of the offenses presented to the court was accurate. He affirmed that his plea was not the result of threats or promises other than those contained in the plea agreement. Finally, the district complied with the requirements of Rule 11. 2 court substantially In his informal brief, Hernandez raises several Fourth Amendment claims concerning the search of two residences and his subsequent arrest. His valid guilty plea waives his right to contest such alleged antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). See We will not address Hernandez s various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). With calculated U.S.C. respect Hernandez s § 3553(a) (2012) to sentencing, Guidelines factors the range, and court properly considered the the of arguments 18 the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. We therefore conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. totality of reasonable. the circumstances, the Additionally, given the sentence is substantively See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. we affirm the district court s judgment. that counsel inform Supreme Hernandez, Court of in the This court requires writing, of his States right for to petition the review. If Hernandez requests that a petition be filed, but 3 United Accordingly, further counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hernandez. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
