UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CESAR FUENTES-RUIZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00072-CCE-1)

Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: February 24, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cesar Fuentes-Ruiz pled guilty in accordance with a written 

plea agreement to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012); 

and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). He was sentenced to 178 months for

the robbery and eighty-four months, consecutive, for the firearm 

offense, for an aggregate sentence of 262 months. Fuentes-Ruiz 

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 and the reasonableness of the 

sentence, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal. Fuentes-Ruiz was advised of the right to file a pro 

se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. Fuentes-Ruiz stated at the Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11 hearing that he had a high school diploma and was not 

under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He expressed 

satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A factual basis for 

the plea was presented to the court, and Fuentes-Ruiz admitted 

his guilt. Finally, the district court substantially complied 

with the requirements of Rule 11. 

With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated 

the Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) 

factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a 
3

sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the 

case. The court specifically explained its reasons for denying 

Fuentes-Ruiz’s request for a downward variance. We therefore 

conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. 

Additionally, given the totality of the circumstances, the 

sentence is substantively reasonable. 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. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Fuentes-Ruiz, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Fuentes-Ruiz 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 Fuentes-Ruiz. 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