US v. Javier Valle, No. 14-4048 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAVIER NAVA VALLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00164-TDS-2) Submitted: June 5, 2014 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 11, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Javier Nava Valle ( Valle ) pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012). The district court sentenced Valle to eighty-seven months imprisonment. * On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied accepting Valle s guilty plea. with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in Valle was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. Because Valle did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 27 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was rights. plain; United and (3) States v. the error Olano, * affected 507 U.S. his 725, substantial 732 (1993). Valle was eligible for relief under the safety valve, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2012), and thus was not subject to the statutory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 2 In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court s Rule 11 omissions. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Our hearing review leads us of the to transcript conclude of that the the guilty district plea court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Valle s guilty plea and that the court s affect Valle s substantial rights. reveals that supported by the district court an independent omissions did not Critically, the transcript ensured basis in that fact, the and plea that was Valle entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the district court s acceptance of Valle s guilty plea. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. district court s judgment. We therefore affirm the This court requires that counsel inform Valle, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Valle requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 3 this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Valle. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
