United States v. Ramiro Calixtro, 680 F. App'x 252

Defendant Ramiro Calixtro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and received the statutory minimum 60-month sentence.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning whether the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when accepting the plea.
Calixtro did not move to withdraw his plea or preserve any Rule 11 error in the district court; the Government declined to file a brief on appeal.
Rule 11 requires the district court to inform the defendant of the charge, maximum penalty, rights waived, voluntariness, and ensure a factual basis for the plea.
On the record, the court omitted developing the independent factual basis for the plea, though it expressly stated a factual basis existed.
Calixtro also filed a pro se brief stating he did not wish to withdraw the plea and sought review of his mandatory minimum sentence; no error was found in sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting the guilty plea	Calixtro argued the court failed to substantially comply because it did not develop the factual basis on the record	Government (and court) argued any omission was harmless and the plea colloquy was otherwise adequate	Court held there was only a minor Rule 11 omission (no on‑the‑record factual development) but no plain error affecting substantial rights; plea upheld
Whether any Rule 11 error is reviewable for plain error	Calixtro had no preserved objection, so review is for plain error	Appellee maintained plain‑error standard applies	Court applied plain‑error review and found no reversible error
Whether the omission affected substantial rights (i.e., would have altered plea decision)	Calixtro suggested the colloquy omission warranted reversal	Record and Calixtro’s filings provided no reasonable probability he would have pleaded differently	Court held substantial rights were not affected; no reversible error
Whether sentence calculation or imposition was erroneous	Calixtro sought review of mandatory minimum sentence	Government maintained sentence was proper and statutory minimum applied	Court found no error in sentence calculation or imposition; sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief indicating lack of meritorious grounds and client may file pro se brief)
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 plea-colloquy requirements and purposes)
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard applied to unpreserved Rule 11 objections)