United States v. Keith Rivera
680 F. App'x 225
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Keith Rivera pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
- The district court sentenced Rivera to 36 months’ imprisonment.
- Rivera did not move to withdraw his plea; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious grounds for appeal.
- The court reviewed the Rule 11 plea colloquy for plain error because Rivera did not seek withdrawal of his plea.
- The court reviewed Rivera’s sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded minor Rule 11 omissions did not affect Rivera’s substantial rights and that the within-Guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 11 colloquy | Rivera contended plea was valid despite minor omissions (no motion to withdraw) | Government maintained colloquy was sufficient; plain-error standard applies | Court found minor omissions did not affect substantial rights; no plain error |
| Voluntariness and factual basis for plea | Rivera implicitly argued plea was voluntary and supported | Government argued plea was voluntary and had factual basis | Court concluded plea was voluntary and supported by adequate factual basis |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Rivera did not demonstrate procedural sentencing error | Government showed Guidelines were properly calculated and §3553(a) considered | Court held sentence procedurally sound |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentence | Rivera failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness | Government argued within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Court affirmed sentence as substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (certifying counsel must brief any issues as frivolous when seeking to withdraw)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review of unchallenged Rule 11 colloquies)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea colloquy)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (defendant must show reasonable probability the error affected plea decision)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review; procedural and substantive sentence review)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)