Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 05-4524
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-04-37-SGW)
Submitted:
Decided:
November 9, 2006
PER CURIAM:
Mario Piedro Liberato pleaded guilty to one count of illegal
reentry into the United States after deportation for an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 2005),
and to one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 5
kilograms of cocaine, 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, and 50 grams of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 846 and 841(a)
(West 1999).2
Finding no
I.
On November 17, 2004, a grand jury returned a five-count
indictment against Liberato for his involvement in a wide-ranging
drug conspiracy.
under
21
U.S.C.A.
846
and
841(a)(1)
with
conspiracy
to
guidelines
issues
and
to
collaterally
attack
the
The
The Government
that
the
Governments
recitation
reflected
her
(J.A. at 50.)
(J.A. at 51.)
Liberatos
counsel
immediately
spoke
up
and
stated
that
to
distributing
the
conspiracy
cocaine
and
but
denying
methamphetamine
responsibility
as
part
of
for
that
court
attributable
to
to
determine
him
and
to
the
exact
determine
quantity
whether
of
any
marijuana
cocaine
or
(J.A. at 57.)
To each question,
recitation,
methamphetamine.
save
the
relating
to
cocaine
and
(J.A. at 90.)
presentence
report
(PSR)
attributed
1,500
pounds
of
(J.A. at 219.)
The
Liberato
timely
noted
an
appeal.
We
have
II.
Liberato contends that the district court erred in accepting
his guilty plea in the face of his refusal to admit involvement in
all the drugs charged in the indictment.
United
context a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-527 (4th
Cir. 2002) (same).
that (1) the district court committed an error, (2) the error was
plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights, i.e.,
that
the
error
proceedings.
affected
the
outcome
of
the
district
courts
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d. 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005).
Even if Liberato makes this showing, we should only notice the
error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.
United States v.
It is axiomatic that
Indeed, we
293 F.3d 175, 187-88 (4th Cir. 2002)(affirming the district courts
acceptance of a guilty plea to a multi-drug conspiracy count even
though the defendant denied responsibility for one of the object
drugs).
Accordingly,
the
district
court
did
not
err
in
Id. at 156-57.
Martinez,
Liberato
marijuana
conspiracy
distinct
from
the
aggravated
threshold
sentenced
to
marijuana
360
quantity.
months
Accordingly,
imprisonment,
which
Liberato
was
within
was
the
Therefore,
our
holding
in
Promise
is
not
implicated
because
Liberato was not sentenced above the statutory maximum for the
aggravated marijuana offense to which he pleaded guilty.
III.
In sum, we affirm Liberatos convictions.
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
We dispense with
contentions
are
AFFIRMED
11