United States v. Fortino Maldonado-Guillen, 683 F. App'x 198

Fortino Maldonado-Guillen pleaded guilty to drug and money laundering conspiracies and was sentenced to 235 months. He later rescinded a motion to withdraw his plea.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioned plea and sentencing procedures; Maldonado-Guillen filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging language/literacy barriers, ineffective representation, and a request to withdraw his plea.
The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy; the court accepted the plea after finding it knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
At sentencing the court calculated the Guidelines range, received argument, imposed a downward variance, and explained the sentence.
Maldonado-Guillen sought substitution of appointed counsel at sentencing; the district court denied the request after prior inquiry and findings.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record (Anders review) and affirmed convictions and sentence, rejecting claims that language access, counsel substitution, or plea withdrawal were warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy	Maldonado-Guillen contends plea was not fully understood; illiteracy/language barriers undermine voluntariness	District court substantially complied with Rule 11; plea was knowing, voluntary, and had factual basis	Affirmed: no reversible plain error; Rule 11 adequate
Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence	Sentence excessive; procedural errors at sentencing	Guidelines correctly calculated; court considered §3553(a) and gave individualized explanation; imposed downward variance	Affirmed: sentence reasonable both procedurally and substantively
Right to substitute counsel at sentencing	Requested new counsel for alleged inadequate communication/review of evidence	Court previously inquired and found no good cause; defendant earlier stated satisfaction with counsel	Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion given timeliness, prior inquiry, and lack of total breakdown
Motion to withdraw guilty plea	Claimed coercion, inability to read plea, and asserted innocence warrant withdrawal	Defendant rescinded withdrawal motion; record shows Rule 11 testimony contradicted coercion/false understanding	Affirmed: heavy burden unmet; plea withdrawal not warranted

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel reporting no meritorious appellate issues)
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review of Rule 11 when defendant withdraws motion to withdraw plea)
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea colloquy)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and procedural/substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Santiago, 495 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2007) (need for oral communication of Anders notice where defendant is illiterate)
United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2004) (standards for reviewing denial of substitution of counsel)
United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (binding effect of defendant’s solemn in-court statements at Rule 11)
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389 (4th Cir. 1992) (standard for fair and just reason to withdraw plea)
United States v. Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2009) (defendant bears heavy burden to show fair and just reason to withdraw plea)