United States v. Victor Pineda-Coto , 545 F. App'x 262 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR DANIEL PINEDA-COTO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00003-RJC-5)
Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant.
William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Daniel Pineda-Coto pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Pineda-
Coto to 120 months in prison. On appeal, counsel for Pineda-
Coto filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal in light of Pineda-Coto’s waiver of his right to appeal.
Pineda-Coto did not file a supplemental pro se brief, despite
notice of his right to do so. The government elected not to
file a response to the Anders brief.
Although counsel is correct that Pineda-Coto’s plea
agreement contained an appellate waiver, the Government has not
sought to enforce the waiver in this case. Accordingly, this
Court conducts a review of the record as required by Anders.
See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir.
2007) (“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to
file a responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable)
or do nothing, allowing this court to perform the required
Anders review.”).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
examined the entire record and have found no meritorious issues.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This Court
2
requires that counsel inform Pineda-Coto in writing of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Pineda-Coto requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Pineda-Coto. 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
3