Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 10-4269
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00678-PMD-1)
Submitted:
February 3, 2011
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Ernesto
sentence
written
imposed
plea
Gonzalez-Torres
following
agreement,
his
to
appeals
guilty
possession
the
plea,
of
twelve-month
pursuant
counterfeit
to
credit
for
accordance
Gonzalez-Torres
with
Anders
v.
filed
brief
California,
in
386
this
U.S.
court
738
in
(1967),
questioning
accepting
whether
(1)
Gonzalez-Torress
the
guilty
district
plea;
court
and
(2)
erred
the
in
court
389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002).
defendant must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error
was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
A defendants
that
he
would
not
have
pled
guilty
but
for
the
error).
A review of the record reveals that the district court
fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
The court
Accordingly,
we hold that the district court did not err in conducting the
plea colloquy.
Because
Gonzalez-Torres
did
not
request
different
there
are
procedural
errors,
we
then
consider
the
an
individualized
presented.
Cir.
2009)
assessment
based
on
the
facts
Gall,
552
U.S.
at
50).
Accordingly,
courts
explanation
need
not
be
exhaustive;
it
Id.
must
be
sentence,
extensive,
while
the
still
district
court
individualized,
may
provide
explanation.
less
United
States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
4
denied,
130
S.
Ct.
2128
(2010).
That
explanation
must
be
Carter,
matter
clear
that
the
is
conceptually
sentencing
simple
judge
However,
and
the
record
makes
considered
the
evidence
and
Rita,
conclude
procedurally
Torress
sentence
that
and
is
the
district
substantively
within
the
courts
sentence
reasonable.
applicable
was
Gonzalez-
Guidelines
range.
understood
that
it
was
advisory.
Furthermore,
it
is
that
it
considered
both
parties
arguments
and
had
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
This
We
court
but
counsel
believes
that
5
such
petition
would
be
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED