UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4315

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAMIRO CALIXTRO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (4:15-cr-00068-F-3)

Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA & STROUD LAW GROUP, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ramiro Calixtro appeals from his criminal judgment after he 

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute cocaine. He received the statutory minimum 60-month 

sentence. 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 the 

district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea. The Government declined to 

file a brief. After careful review, we affirm.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a court must conduct a 

plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and 

determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the 

charge to which he is pleading guilty, the maximum possible 

penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by 

pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court 

also must ensure that the defendant’s plea is voluntary, 

supported by a sufficient factual basis, and not the result of 

force, threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)-(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20.

Because Calixtro did not move to withdraw his guilty plea 

in the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation of 

Rule 11 error, we review the plea colloquy for plain error. 
3

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). “To 

prevail on a claim of plain error, [Calixtro] must demonstrate 

not only that the district court plainly erred, but also that 

this error affected his substantial rights.” Id. at 816. In 

the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes that an error 

affected his substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable 

probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the 

error. Id.

The record reveals that the district court conducted a 

sufficient plea colloquy with Calixtro. The only error was 

that, although the court expressly stated that the plea was 

supported by an independent factual basis, it did not develop it 

on the record. However, neither Calixtro nor the record suggest 

that, but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty. 

Therefore his substantial rights were not affected.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not 

plainly err in accepting Calixtro’s guilty plea. Calixtro filed 

a pro se brief stating that he did not wish to withdraw his 

guilty plea and that he only requested review of his mandatory 

minimum sentence. There was no reversible error in the sentence 

calculation or imposition. In accordance with Anders, we have 

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Calixtro’s 

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 
4

inform Calixtro, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Calixtro 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 

Calixtro.

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