USCA4 Appeal: 23-4548 Doc: 38 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL PALACIOS-JAIMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00375-CCE-4)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William R. Terpening, TERPENING LAW, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4548 Doc: 38 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Palacios-Jaimes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of

(b)(1)(C), 846. The district court sentenced Palacios-Jaimes to 188

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

but questioning the validity of Palacios-Jaimes’s guilty plea, including the voluntariness of

the plea and the adequacy of the factual basis supporting the plea. Although informed of

his right to do so, Palacios-Jaimes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the

Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.

Because Palacios-Jaimes did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty

plea, we review the validity of his guilty plea for plain error. United States v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 2016). Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court,

through a colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that

the defendant understands, the charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory

minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various

rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also

must ensure that the defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual

basis, and did not result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea

agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of the court’s

compliance with Rule 11, “[w]e accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how

best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant.” United States v. Moussaoui,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4548 Doc: 38 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed

the Rule 11 colloquy and, discerning no plain error, we conclude that Palacios-Jaimes’s

guilty plea is valid. Specifically, we see no evidence in the present record that Palacios-

Jaimes was threatened or coerced into entering a guilty plea, and the factual basis

adequately supports his plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Palacios-Jaimes, in writing, of the right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s

motion to withdraw as counsel. If Palacios-Jaimes requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his

motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

thereof was served on Palacios-Jaimes. 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

3