UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Paz MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4751
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2016. Decided: August 5, 2016.
658 Fed. Appx. 826
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Paz Mendoza pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of
Because Mendoza did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the acceptance of his guilty plea for plain error. United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015). “In order to satisfy the plain error standard [Mendoza] must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-343 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed the record and conclude that no reversible error occurred in the acceptance of Mendoza‘s guilty plea, which was knowing and voluntary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Mendoza‘s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Mendoza, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mendoza requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel‘s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mendoza.
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
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Bernard FRIEND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7091
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2016. Decided: August 5, 2016.
658 Fed. Appx. 826
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Philip Bernard Friend appeals the district court‘s order denying relief on his
Friend was arrested at the age of 17 in connection with several carjackings. In 2000, Friend pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting carjacking,
After multiple efforts at postconviction relief,* in 2013, exactly one year after the Supreme Court‘s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), Friend filed with this court a
The district court denied relief on Friend‘s motion, however, relying on our subsequent decision in Johnson v. Ponton, 780 F.3d 219, 221, 226 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that Miller is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). On appeal, Friend‘s case was placed in abeyance for the Supreme Court‘s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), in which the Supreme Court held that Miller announced a new substantive constitutional rule that is retroactive on collateral review. Accordingly, we granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Friend‘s life-without-parole sentence is unconstitutional under Miller.
In its response, the Government concedes that Friend is entitled to resentencing in light of Miller, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by Montgomery. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the district court‘s order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED