NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 7, 2020 Decided February 12, 2021 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge Nos. 19-2979 & 19-3191 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeals from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. v. No. 1:17-CR-00165 MIGEUEL LARA LEON and RICARDO Tanya Walton Pratt, OCHOA-BELTRAN, Judge. Defendants-Appellants. ORDER Appellants Ricardo Ochoa-Beltran and Miguel Lara-Leon were indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and several other drug-related charges for their leadership of a drug trafficking organization operating out of Indianapolis. Ochoa-Beltran led the organization and Lara-Leon served as his second-in-command. At their direction, several co-conspirators distributed methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana throughout the Indianapolis area and laundered the proceeds to California and Mexico. Nos. 19-2979 & 19-3191 Page 2 Shortly before trial, both Ochoa-Beltran and Lara-Leon pled guilty. The district court sentenced them on October 30, 2019 and September 25, 2019, respectively. In the meantime, two of their co-conspirators, Angelica Guzman-Cordoba and Joel Alvarado- Santiago, were tried and convicted by a jury. As a result, by the time the district court sentenced Ochoa-Beltran and Lara-Leon, it was very familiar with the facts of this case and the operation of the drug trafficking organization as a whole. The district court ultimately sentenced Ochoa-Beltran to 360 months in prison and Lara-Leon to 260 months in prison. Both defendants appealed, but their appointed counsel assert that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal and move to withdraw from the representation. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Because both briefs are sufficient on their face, we limit our review to the issues discussed in the briefs. United States v. Jones, 696 F.3d 695, 702 (7th Cir. 2012). Both persuasively demonstrate the absence of any nonfrivolous ground for challenging the Defendants’ guilty pleas and sentences. Counsel for both Ochoa-Beltran and Lara-Leon begin by exploring whether the district court committed any error in accepting their guilty pleas. 1 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 governs the entry of pleas by a defendant. It imposes numerous obligations upon the court in order to properly consider and accept that plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The “core concern” of a Rule 11 colloquy is to determine whether the plea is knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761, 773 (7th Cir. 2010). Neither Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, so our review of their change of plea proceedings is for plain error. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, counsel contend that both plea hearings complied with Rule 11. The district court placed the Defendants under oath and, among other things, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals