UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEONICIO GARCIA, a/k/a Nicho, a/k/a Leno, a/k/a Tio, a/k/a 

Leo, a/k/a Valente Garcia,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00797-JFA-1)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert W. Louthian, Jr., LOUTHIAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leonicio Garcia appeals his conviction and 235 month 

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and 

distribute heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846 (2006) (Count 1); unlawful entry into 

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006) 

(Count 99); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), (h) (2006) (Count 104). 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending there are no 

meritorious issues on appeal, but questioning whether Garcia’s 

guilty plea was valid and whether the district court erred in 

applying a two level enhancement for possession of a firearm 

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(1)

(2008). Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting 

that his guilty plea was invalid, as his attorney advised him to 

admit to conduct he did not commit, and that his attorney was 

ineffective in advising him to stipulate to being a leader in a 

conspiracy, telling him to agree to everything that was said 

during sentencing, failing to argue more vigorously for a 

greater downward departure, and misleading him through threats 

and duress into entering a guilty plea. The Government has 

declined to file a brief. We affirm.
3

Because Garcia failed to challenge the validity of his 

guilty plea before the district court, our review is for plain 

error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-27 (4th 

Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Garcia] must 

demonstrate that an error occurred, that the error was plain, 

and that the error affected his substantial rights.” United 

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2009). Even if 

Garcia makes such a showing, we will not recognize the error 

unless it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” 

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, 

through colloquy with the defendant in open court, must inform 

the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, 

the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any 

mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he 

faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading 

guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). In addition, the court must 

ascertain that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual 

basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). After 

reviewing the record, we find that Garcia’s guilty plea was 

knowingly and voluntarily entered, in compliance with Rule 11. 

Accordingly, we find that his guilty plea was valid, and this 

issue is without merit.

Id.
4

Next, Garcia’s counsel contends that the district 

court erred in enhancing his sentence due to his possession of a 

firearm, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). However, because 

Garcia stipulated to the applicability of such an enhancement in 

his plea agreement, this issue is without merit.

In accordance with Anders

AFFIRMED

, we have reviewed the record 

and found no meritorious issues on appeal. Additionally, we 

have reviewed the claims raised in Garcia’s supplemental brief 

and found them to be unavailing. Therefore, we affirm the 

judgment of the district court. This court requires that 

counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.