USCA4 Appeal: 22-4599 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4599 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS JAAZIEL ZAMORA RAMOS, a/k/a Jaazier Zamore, a/k/a Jazier Zamore, a/k/a Jaaziel Jesus Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Jaaziel Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Zamora, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Jaaziel Zamora, Defendant - Appellant. No. 22-4615 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS JAAZIEL ZAMORA RAMOS, a/k/a Jaazier Zamora, a/k/a Jesus Jaaziel Zamora, a/k/a Jazier Zamore, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00346-TSE-1; 1:22-cr-00143- TSE-1) USCA4 Appeal: 22-4599 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 5 Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023 Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. No. 22-4599, affirmed; No. 22-4615, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ann Mason Rigby, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4599 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 5 PER CURIAM: Jesus Jaaziel Zamora Ramos (“Zamora”) appeals his conviction and 16-month sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after removal subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He also appeals the revocation of his supervised release, for which the district court imposed a consecutive 5-month prison term. On appeal, Zamora’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the validity of Zamora’s guilty plea. Though notified of his right to do so, Zamora has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that he understands, the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalty he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Zamora did not preserve any error in the plea proceedings, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013) (describing standard). Based on our review of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Zamora’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact. Although, as Anders counsel notes, the district court neglected to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals