UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Meliton Alonzo Hernandez pled guilty in accordance 

with a written plea agreement to possession with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (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 and the reasonableness of the sentence but 

concluding that there are no meritorious issues for 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 court substantially 

complied with the requirements of Rule 11. 
3

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. See

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). 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 respect to sentencing, the court properly 

calculated Hernandez’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the arguments of the 

parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment 

based on the facts of the case. 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 Hernandez, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Hernandez requests that a petition be filed, but 
4

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 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