United States v. Enamorado-Ramirez , 423 F. App'x 263 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALDO ENAMORADO-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00064-GRA-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, A. Lance Crick, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aldo Enamorado-Ramirez appeals his conviction,
pursuant to a guilty plea, for possession with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Enamorado-Ramirez, a Spanish-
speaking defendant who used a translator during court
proceedings, argues that the district court violated his rights
by relying on written documents and representations of counsel
rather than addressing him directly during the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing. Because his substantial rights were not thereby
affected, we affirm.
Enamorado-Ramirez did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea. Thus, we review the Rule 11
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [he] must
show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and the
error affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even when a
defendant meets these three criteria, we “may exercise [our]
discretion to correct the error only if it ‘seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.’” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337,
343 (4th Cir. 2009)).
2
Here, Enamorado-Ramirez complains that, rather than
addressing him personally, the district court relied on the
contents of a completed “Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty,”
along with the representations of defense counsel, to establish
that his plea was knowing and voluntary. The record reveals
that Enamorado-Ramirez communicated with the district court
through an interpreter and that he assured the court that he
understood the nature of the proceedings, the rights he waived
and the penalties he faced, and was satisfied with his
attorney’s performance. See United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47
F.3d 1,8 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that district court’s use of
written document, in conjunction with colloquy with defendant,
satisfied Rule 11). Enamorado-Ramirez had ample opportunity to
alert the district court to any misunderstanding of or
disagreement with the terms of his plea but did not do so.
Moreover, he admitted that the facts proffered by the Government
supported his guilty plea. Enamorado-Ramirez has failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have insisted
upon a trial if the district court itself had summarized the
Petition. See United States v. Hairston, 522 F.3d 336, 341 (4th
Cir. 2008) (discussing factors courts consider in determining
whether defendant’s substantial rights were affected).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
3
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
4