NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-3999

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v.

MAURICIO CONTRERAS-BURITICA,

 Appellant

____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-0080-1)

District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 28, 2011

____________

Before: BARRY, HARDIMAN and TASHIMA,

* Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: May 11, 2011 )

____________

OPINION

____________

 

 

* Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

BARRY, Circuit Judge

Mauricio Contreras-Buritica pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to import 
2

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, and was sentenced to 365 months of 

imprisonment. His appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Local Appellate Rule 109.2. Counsel’s Anders brief 

is inadequate, but because the appeal is “patently frivolous,” we will nonetheless grant the 

motion and affirm Contreras-Buritica’s conviction and sentence, in accordance with 

United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2009). 

I. BACKGROUND

Contreras-Buritica was a leader of a conspiracy to import cocaine from Colombia 

to New Jersey. With information from a confidential informant, DEA agents seized eight 

kilograms of cocaine in Colombia on August 30, 2007, cocaine that was intended to be 

delivered to Contreras-Buritica in New Jersey. He did not know the cocaine had been 

seized, however, and he met with his associates after the seizure and took possession of 

eight kilograms of sham cocaine. Two months later, under similar circumstances, the 

DEA seized twenty kilograms of cocaine in Colombia, and Contreras-Buritica was 

arrested when he met with his associates to pick up this second shipment. 

The informant who tipped off the DEA regarding the cocaine in Colombia also 

told a government agent that Contreras-Buritica claimed that “he was a body guard and a 

hit man for the Cartel in Colombia” and that he bribed a judge there to “get rid of th[e] 

problem” of a murder or homicide charge. (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., March 20, 2009 (“March 

Sentencing Tr.”) at 11-12.) He told the informant that he could supply him with cocaine, 
3

ecstasy, handguns, and rifles. 

On September 24, 2008, Contreras-Buritica pled guilty to one count of conspiracy 

to import cocaine. During that hearing, the District Court conducted a thorough colloquy 

according to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b), and found that there was a factual 

basis for the plea and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The defendant 

told the Court that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation, and the parties 

agreed that his offense involved more than fifteen but less than fifty kilograms of cocaine. 

His three co-defendants also pled guilty, and the government’s investigation revealed that 

at least three additional people were involved in this conspiracy.

While he was in jail and before sentencing, Contreras-Buritica met with an 

undercover agent and asked him to protect a stash of cocaine and money at a house in 

New Jersey. During this period, he tried to use his network to import more cocaine from 

Colombia. He also believed that one of his co-defendants, who was housed in the same 

facility, was cooperating with the government. He and his cell mate accused the codefendant of doing so and beat him. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent 

saw bruises and other signs of injury on the co-defendant. During a proffer session, 

Contreras-Buritica then lied to the government regarding these activities.

Contreras-Buritica’s sentencing hearing began on March 20, 2009, and his counsel 

objected to the Presentence Investigation Report’s (“PSR”) enhancement for obstruction 

of justice as well as the denial of a reduction in the offense level for acceptance of 
4

responsibility. He also objected to the facts in the PSR regarding his client’s criminal 

activities while in detention. After hearing testimony from an Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement agent regarding those activities, however, the District Court adopted the 

facts in the PSR. 

In accordance with the parties’ agreement regarding the amount of cocaine for 

which Contreras-Buritica was responsible, the District Court applied a base offense level 

of 34 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, increased that by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for 

his role as an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more 

participants, and increased it by two additional levels for obstruction of justice under 

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. His total offense level was therefore 40. With a criminal history 

category of I, the guidelines range was 292 to 365 months. 

The District Court applied the enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) because it was 

“more than satisfied that the evidence established that he was an organizer and a leader in 

that activity [importing cocaine from Colombia] that involved five or more people.” 

(March Sentencing Tr. at 28.) The enhancement for obstruction of justice was applied due 

to the harm to his co-defendant, as well as his lies to the government during the proffer 

session. With respect to acceptance of responsibility, the Court stated that 

where there is evidence indicating that there should be enhancement for 

obstruction of justice, and that particularly where that obstruction of justice 

occurred after the guilty plea as is demonstrated here, there is no reason to 

award any points for acceptance of responsibility.

In short, following his conviction, he lied to the government about meetings 

he had with individuals at jail, he attempted to negotiate a drug transaction, 
5

he attempted to remove a stash of drugs which he had from a stash house, 

and all of those are more than sufficient to demonstrate that he should 

receive no consideration for acceptance of responsibility.

(Id. at 29-30.) After calculating the offense level, the Court recessed the sentencing 

hearing so that the government could obtain proof of Contreras-Buritica’s criminal record 

in Colombia. 

When the hearing reconvened on October 7, 2009, the District Court sentenced 

Contreras-Buritica to 365 months, noting that he was “the ringleader”; the amount of 

drugs involved “was, to put it mildly, substantial”; he attempted to traffic narcotics from 

jail and to protect the stash house; and he had a serious criminal record in Colombia.1(R. 

at Da-15-16.) 

II. ANALYSIS2

In Coleman, we explained the process that we follow in analyzing a criminal 

appeal in which defense counsel has filed an Anders motion:

appellant’s counsel must satisfy the court that he or she has thoroughly 

scoured the record in search of appealable issues and then explain why the 

issues are frivolous. The Court’s inquiry when counsel submits an Anders

 

1 After the government presented the District Court with the documentation it 

received from Colombia, and translations thereof, the Court found that Contreras-Buritica 

had been convicted there for extortion, aggravated theft, unlawful possession of weapons, 

and assault and battery. The Colombian convictions did not affect his criminal history 

category. 

2

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Contreras-Buritica’s 

appellate counsel, who did not represent him before the District Court, certified that she 

served her Anders motion and brief on the defendant and the government, and the 

government responded to it. Contreras-Buritica has not filed a pro se brief, which Rule 

109.2 permits but does not require.
6

brief is thus twofold: (1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled Third Circuit 

Local Appellate Rule 109.2’s requirements; and (2) whether an independent 

review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.

575 F.3d at 319 (internal quotation marks, citations, and punctuation omitted). We will 

grant the Anders motion and decide the appeal if we agree that it has no merit, but if we 

“find[] arguable merit to the appeal, or that the Anders brief is inadequate to assist the 

court in its review, [we] will appoint substitute counsel, order supplemental briefing and 

restore the case to the calendar.” Local App. R. 109.2(a). If, however, the “frivolousness 

[of the appeal] is patent, we will not appoint new counsel even if an Anders brief is 

insufficient to discharge current counsel’s obligations to his or her client and this court.” 

Coleman, 575 F.3d at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Counsel argues that the District Court had jurisdiction, that there is no appealable 

issue regarding the guilty plea, and that the sentence was legal and reasonable. Based on 

our independent review of the record, we agree. Counsel failed to show, however, that 

she “thoroughly scoured the record,” and her Anders brief contains a number of errors. It 

states, for example, that “[a]t the Sentencing Hearing, Contreras-Buritica . . . requested a 

variance, and not a departure, based on his cooperation with Immigration and Customs 

officials,” but cooperation was not at issue at either sentencing hearing. (Anders Br. at 1.) 

Contreras-Buritica instead argued against an obstruction of justice enhancement for, 

among other things, lying to the government, and he claimed that he was entitled to an 

offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, despite his attempts while 
7

incarcerated to continue drug trafficking and intimidate his co-defendant. The issues at 

sentencing were thus quite different from the value of a defendant’s cooperation.

Appellate counsel also states that “[a]t the Sentencing Hearing, ContrerasBuritica’s counsel raised no objection to the Guideline calculations in the PSR.” (Id. at 3; 

see also id. at 7-8.) But at the sentencing hearing in March of 2009, at which the District 

Court calculated the offense level, the defendant did object to the guidelines calculation 

and factual issues in the PSR.3The Anders brief also states that his guidelines range was 

“78 to 97 months,” which is inaccurate. (Id. at 3.) Appellate counsel committed serious 

factual errors in reviewing this case. Her legal analysis is sparse, and the brief is 

“inadequate to assist the court in [our] review.” Local App. R. 109.2(a). 

We have nonetheless carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the appeal is 

“patently frivolous.” Coleman, 575 F.3d at 321. Based on the record before us, the 

District Court did not err in accepting Contreras-Buritica’s plea agreement and guilty 

plea. The Court’s factual findings at sentencing were reasonable and well-supported. It 

correctly calculated the guidelines range, considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a), and used its discretion to impose a reasonable sentence, which was within the 

guidelines range. As we have identified no non-frivolous issues for appeal, we need not

appoint new appellate counsel, order supplemental briefing, or return this case to the 

 

3 Contreras-Buritica’s appellate counsel submitted to us only the transcript from 

the final sentencing hearing in October of 2009. We obtained the transcripts from the 

guilty plea hearing and the first sentencing hearing in March of 2009 directly from the 
8

calendar.

III. CONCLUSION

We will grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

 

court reporter. We do not know whether appellate counsel reviewed the events at either of 

these hearings.