Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04211/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yair Guzman-Ortega
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YAIR GUZMAN-ORTEGA, a/k/a Alex, a/k/a Chaparo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00010-MR-DLH-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 15, 2016

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4211 Doc: 38 Filed: 04/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Yair Guzman-Ortega pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2012). The district court sentenced Guzman-Ortega to 168 

months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether 

Guzman-Ortega’s guilty plea was valid, his sentence was 

reasonable, and he received effective assistance of counsel. 

Guzman-Ortega was advised of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but has not filed one. The Government 

declined to file a brief.

Because Guzman-Ortega did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for 

plain error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 

(4th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, Guzman-Ortega must 

demonstrate that the district court erred, the error was plain, 

and it affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013); United States v. Muhammad, 

478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Guzman-Ortega 

satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error remains 

within our discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless 

Appeal: 15-4211 Doc: 38 Filed: 04/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 5
3

the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Muhammad, 478 F.3d at 249

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of 

the record leads us to conclude that the district court 

substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure in accepting Guzman-Ortega’s guilty plea, 

which Guzman-Ortega entered knowingly and voluntarily. 

Next, we review Guzman-Ortega’s sentence for procedural and 

substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). We must first ensure that the district court did not 

commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to 

properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to 

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or 

failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. If we find the 

sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its 

substantive reasonableness. Id. “Any sentence that is within 

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively 

[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be 

rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (citation 

omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

Appeal: 15-4211 Doc: 38 Filed: 04/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 5
4

Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive 

sentencing error by the district court. The district court 

correctly calculated Guzman-Ortega’s advisory Guidelines range, 

heard argument from counsel, provided Guzman-Ortega an 

opportunity to allocute, and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. We have reviewed the record and conclude that GuzmanOrtega’s within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable.

Turning to Guzman-Ortega’s ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim, unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively 

appears on the face of the record, such claims are not generally 

addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 

424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised 

in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in 

order to permit sufficient development of the record. United 

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective 

assistance of counsel, we conclude that these claims should be 

raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this 

case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This 

court requires that counsel inform Guzman-Ortega, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

Appeal: 15-4211 Doc: 38 Filed: 04/15/2016 Pg: 4 of 5
5

further review. If Guzman-Ortega requests that a petition be 

filed, but 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 Guzman-Ortega.

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

Appeal: 15-4211 Doc: 38 Filed: 04/15/2016 Pg: 5 of 5