United States of America v. Luis Castro Villeda, a/k/a Luis Herierto Villeda

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS CASTRO VILLEDA, a/k/a Luis Herierto Villeda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cr-00556-JMC-3)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Luis Castro Villeda appeals his conviction and the 360-
month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to kidnap another person
and transport him across state lines, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1201 (2012). Villeda’s attorney filed a brief, pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the district
court’s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the
reasonableness of Villeda’s sentence as possible issues for
review. Villeda has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and the
Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Because Villeda did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a
defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was
plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. See
United States v. McLaurin, 764 F.3d 372, 388 (4th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1842 (2015). In the
guilty plea context, a defendant satisfies this burden by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled

-- 2 of 5 --

3
guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). “Even
when this burden is met, we have discretion whether to recognize
the error, and should not do so unless the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 611 (4th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of Villeda’s plea hearing leads us to conclude
that the district court complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Villeda’s guilty plea. Critically, the transcript
reveals that the district court ensured that the plea was
supported by an independent basis in fact and that Villeda
entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily, with an
understanding of the consequences. United States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern
no error in the district court’s acceptance of Villeda’s guilty
plea.
Although we review Villeda’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007), we review unpreserved, non-
structural sentencing errors for plain error. See United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review
requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first

-- 3 of 5 --

4
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575–76. If we find no procedural error, we review the sentence
for substantive reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d
212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below
a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We conclude that Villeda’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court correctly
calculated Villeda’s Guidelines range, listened to counsel’s
arguments, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the
360-month sentence. Further, Villeda offers nothing to rebut
the presumption of substantive reasonableness this court affords
his within-Guidelines sentence. We thus conclude that Villeda’s
sentence is reasonable.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires counsel to inform Villeda, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Villeda requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Villeda. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --