United States v. Alonso , 255 F. App'x 759 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4458
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO CASTILLO ALONSO, a/k/a Antonio
Castillo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00241-WLO)
Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, P.A., Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Castillo Alonso entered an Alford* plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
district court sentenced Alonso to 65 months’ imprisonment, five
years of supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100
statutory assessment. On appeal, Alonso asserts error in the
district court’s acceptance of his Alford plea, contending that the
evidence of his guilt was not “overwhelming” and claiming the court
should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on his objection to
the presentence report. We find no merit to his appeal.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
finding that a factual basis exists to support an Alford plea.
United States v. Morrow, 914 F.2d 608, 611 (4th Cir. 1990). Our
review of the record reveals that the prosecutor filed a written
summary and orally proffered a statement of facts in support of the
Alford plea, and responded to questions from the district court
during Alonso’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. In addition, the
district court accepted Alonso’s Alford plea following a thorough
Rule 11 colloquy. Alonso’s challenges to the presentence report
related to his continued claim of innocence, rather to any issue
that had any impact on the calculation of his advisory guidelines
range, and the district court adequately resolved Alonso’s
*
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
- 2 -
challenges to the presentence report when it adopted the
presentence report for purposes of determining the guidelines
range.
We therefore affirm Alonso’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -