Court Opinion

ID: 9397891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:36.080348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.556310
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4615     Doc: 26         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4599

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JESUS JAAZIEL ZAMORA RAMOS, a/k/a Jaazier Zamore, a/k/a Jazier Zamore,
        a/k/a Jaaziel Jesus Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Jaaziel Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Zamora, a/k/a
        John Doe, a/k/a Jaaziel Zamora,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 22-4615

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JESUS JAAZIEL ZAMORA RAMOS, a/k/a Jaazier Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Jaaziel
        Zamora, a/k/a Jazier Zamore,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00346-TSE-1; 1:22-cr-00143-
        TSE-1)
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4615      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        No. 22-4599, affirmed; No. 22-4615, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by
        unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, Ann Mason Rigby, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
        OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
        Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4615      Doc: 26           Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Jesus Jaaziel Zamora Ramos (“Zamora”) appeals his conviction and 16-month

        sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after removal subsequent to a felony

        conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He also appeals the revocation of his

        supervised release, for which the district court imposed a consecutive 5-month prison term.

        On appeal, Zamora’s 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 the

        validity of Zamora’s guilty plea. Though notified of his right to do so, Zamora has not

        filed a pro se supplemental brief.

               Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which

        it informs the defendant of, and determines that he understands, the nature of the charges

        to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalty he

        faces, and the 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 court also must ensure

        that the defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed.

        R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3).     Because Zamora did not preserve any error in the plea

        proceedings, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. United States v.

        Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013)

        (describing standard).

               Based on our review of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Zamora’s plea was

        knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact. Although, as Anders

        counsel notes, the district court neglected to advise Zamora of some of his trial rights, we

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4615      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        discern nothing in the record suggesting that, but for these minor omissions, Zamora would

        not have pleaded guilty. See United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 427 (4th Cir.

        2015). Therefore, we affirm Zamora’s conviction.

               However, we vacate Zamora’s original sentence because the written judgment

        contains two special conditions of supervised release—requiring Zamora to surrender to

        immigration officials upon release from prison and to cooperate with all removal

        procedures—that were not announced at sentencing. * United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d

        341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]n order to sentence a defendant to a non-mandatory condition

        of supervised release, the sentencing court must include that condition in its oral

        pronouncement of a defendant’s sentence in open court.”); accord United States v. Rogers,

        961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020). Finally, we affirm Zamora’s revocation judgment.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Zamora’s conviction

        and revocation judgment but vacate his original sentence and remand for resentencing.

        This court requires that counsel inform Zamora, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Zamora requests that a petition

        be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

               *
                 On remand, the district court might consider whether supervised release is even
        warranted. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.1.(c) (2018) (“The court
        ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which supervised
        release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be
        deported after imprisonment.”); see Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d at 423-25 (discussing
        USSG § 5D1.1.(c)).

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4615         Doc: 26     Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

        that a copy thereof was served on Zamora.

              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.

                                                                       No. 22-4599, AFFIRMED;
                                                              No. 22-4615, AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                            VACATED IN PART,
                                                                              AND REMANDED

                                                    5