Court Opinion

ID: 9382274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:29.476532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.127788
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008     Doc: 36         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-4008

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff – Appellee,

                     v.

        ANGELO MEJIA, a/k/a Los,

                            Defendant – Appellant.

                                              No. 20-4009

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANGELO MEJIA, a/k/a Los, a/k/a Lo, a/k/a Loco,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
        at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00054-RJC-DSC-1; 3:18-cr-
        00082-RJC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                    Decided: March 24, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008      Doc: 36         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 6

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brandon R. Roseman, BRANDON ROSEMAN, PLLC, Charlotte, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008      Doc: 36          Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Angelo Mejia pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with

        intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession

        of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“case one”). Mejia

        also pled guilty in a separate criminal case (“case two”) pursuant to a second written plea

        agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams

        of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and

        possession with intent to distribute heroin, and aiding and abetting, in violation of

        21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The cases were consolidated for the

        purposes of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea hearing. The district court sentenced Mejia to a

        total term of 235 months’ imprisonment, which included 235 months on the cocaine

        conviction and 120 months on the firearm conviction to be served concurrently to each

        other and to the term of imprisonment in case two. In case two, the court sentenced Mejia

        to 235 months on both counts to be served concurrently. Mejia noted an appeal in both

        cases, and the appeals have been consolidated.

               On appeal, Mejia argues that (1) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allowing

        him to enter into a contradictory plea agreement in case two and by withdrawing two

        objections to sentencing enhancements at the start of Mejia’s sentencing hearing; (2) his

        plea was not knowing and voluntary due to contradictory terms in his plea agreement; and

        (3) the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019),

        invalidates his § 922(g) conviction. We affirm the district court’s judgments.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008       Doc: 36         Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

               We do not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel made on direct appeal

        unless the record conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States v.

        Campbell, 963 F.3d 309, 319 (4th Cir. 2020). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of

        counsel claim, Mejia must show that (1) counsel’s performance was constitutionally

        deficient and (2) the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466

        U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1964 (2017) (discussing

        prejudice in context of guilty plea). Our review of the current record does not conclusively

        establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, this claim should be raised, if at all,

        in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507–08 (4th Cir.

        2016); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-07 (2003) (discussing

        standard).

               We turn next to the validity of Mejia’s guilty plea. Because Mejia did not move to

        withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the validity of his plea for plain

        error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). “Under the plain error

        standard, this Court will correct an unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error

        is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the

        fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris,

        890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the guilty plea

        context, a defendant establishes that an error affected his substantial rights by

        demonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered

        the plea.” United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 608 (2013) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008      Doc: 36          Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

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

        which it informs the defendant of, and ensures that the defendant understands, the rights

        he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the nature of the charges to which he is pleading,

        and the possible consequences of pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States

        v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court must also ensure that the plea is

        voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises extrinsic to the plea agreement

        and that a factual basis exists for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). “[A] properly

        conducted Rule 11 plea colloquy raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and

        binding.” United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375, 377 n.1 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

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

        knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. The magistrate judge

        reviewed the terms of Mejia’s plea agreements, including the stipulations made by the

        parties regarding the Sentencing Guidelines, and ensured that Mejia had read, understood,

        and agreed to these terms. We conclude that the terms of Mejia’s plea agreements are not

        contradictory and do not render Mejia’s otherwise valid guilty plea unknowing and

        involuntary. Therefore, the magistrate judge and the district court committed no error in

        accepting Mejia’s guilty plea.

               We finally turn to Mejia’s Rehaif challenge to his guilty plea. Because Mejia did

        not raise this argument in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See Greer

        v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2099-100 (2021) (holding that unpreserved Rehaif claims

        are subject to plain error review). In the context of a Rehaif error, the Supreme Court held

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4008      Doc: 36         Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 6 of 6

        in Greer that such an error “is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first

        makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented

        evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon.” Id. at 2100. “When a

        defendant advances such an argument or representation on appeal, [we] must determine

        whether the defendant has carried the burden of showing a reasonable probability that the

        outcome of the district court proceeding would have been different.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               Mejia does not argue that he did not know he was a felon, and we conclude that any

        attempt to do so would be unconvincing in light of his criminal history, which includes a

        felony possession of cocaine conviction for which Mejia was still on probation when he

        committed the instant offenses. Therefore, Mejia has not demonstrated a reasonable

        probability that the outcome of these proceedings would have been different had the district

        court been aware of, and advised Mejia regarding, the knowledge-of-status element under

        Rehaif. See United States v. Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 213 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that

        defendant’s prior record of incarceration made it “virtually impossible to believe he did not

        know he had been convicted of crimes punishable by” more than one year in prison).

        Consequently, Mejia’s guilty plea remains valid after Rehaif.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 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

                                                     6