United States v. Modesto Manrique ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MODESTO PRADO MANRIQUE, a/k/a Eduardo Carrillo, a/k/a Marco
Govea Torres,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00097-RJC-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson,
Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Modesto Prado Manrique appeals the forty-one-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry by an
aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)
(2006). Counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness
of Manrique’s sentence but stating that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Manrique received notice of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. We
affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). We review the
procedural reasonableness of a sentence by examining whether the
district court properly calculated the Guidelines range,
determined whether a sentence within that range serves the
factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and explained its
reasons for selecting the chosen sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at
473. “A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines range
is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d
178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Manrique. In addition, Manrique fails to
2
rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-
Guidelines sentence. Hence, we conclude that the sentence is
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Manrique’s sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Manrique, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Manrique 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. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Manrique. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3