Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    United States v. Guerrero, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Gil Cruz Guerrero pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. His attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raised two issues: (1) whether consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm charges violated double jeopardy and (2) whether failure to notify Guerrero of his right to contact the Mexican consulate violated his rights. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both claims. It found no double jeopardy violation based on prior cases. It also found the Vienna Convention claim meritless because Guerrero did not demonstrate any prejudice from the failure to notify him of his consular rights. 3) The Fourth Circuit examined the full record and found no grounds to over

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Guerrero, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views3 pages
    1) Gil Cruz Guerrero pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. His attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raised two issues: (1) whether consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm charges violated double jeopardy and (2) whether failure to notify Guerrero of his right to contact the Mexican consulate violated his rights. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both claims. It found no double jeopardy violation based on prior cases. It also found the Vienna Convention claim meritless because Guerrero did not demonstrate any prejudice from the failure to notify him of his consular rights. 3) The Fourth Circuit examined the full record and found no grounds to over

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4062

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Gil Cruz Guerrero pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. His attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raised two issues: (1) whether consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm charges violated double jeopardy and (2) whether failure to notify Guerrero of his right to contact the Mexican consulate violated his rights. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both claims. It found no double jeopardy violation based on prior cases. It also found the Vienna Convention claim meritless because Guerrero did not demonstrate any prejudice from the failure to notify him of his consular rights. 3) The Fourth Circuit examined the full record and found no grounds to over

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views3 pages

    United States v. Guerrero, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Gil Cruz Guerrero pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. His attorney argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raised two issues: (1) whether consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm charges violated double jeopardy and (2) whether failure to notify Guerrero of his right to contact the Mexican consulate violated his rights. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both claims. It found no double jeopardy violation based on prior cases. It also found the Vienna Convention claim meritless because Guerrero did not demonstrate any prejudice from the failure to notify him of his consular rights. 3) The Fourth Circuit examined the full record and found no grounds to over

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    GIL CRUZ GUERRERO,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 02-4062

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-52-BO)
    Submitted: August 20, 2002
    Decided: September 5, 2002
    Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Vaughan S. Winborne, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. GUERRERO

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Gil Cruz Guerrero pled guilty to one count of possession with
    intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, one count of using
    and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
    offense, and one count of interstate travel or transportation in aid of
    racketeering enterprises. Guerreros attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states
    that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raises two contentions on Guerreros behalf. Guerrero was advised of his right to file
    a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
    Counsel first contends that the sixty-month consecutive sentence
    imposed for the firearm offense violates the proscription against double jeopardy because Guerrero already received a seventy-one month
    sentence for the same offense behavior in count one for possession of
    cocaine with intent to distribute. We find no double jeopardy violation and reject this contention. See United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d
    415, 418-19 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Luskin, 926 F.2d 372,
    377 (4th Cir. 1991).
    Counsel next asserts that Guerreros rights under the Vienna Convention were violated because he was never informed at the time of
    arrest of his right to contact the Mexican Consul. As Guerrero cannot
    demonstrate and the record does not reveal any prejudice resulting
    from the failure to inform, we find this contention meritless. Breard
    v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 377 (1998).
    We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
    the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm Guerreros convictions and sentences. This
    court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
    to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
    If the client 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. Counsels motion
    must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

    UNITED STATES v. GUERRERO

    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like