United States v. Alexis Villalta-Morales , 678 F. App'x 118 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXIS VILLALTA-MORALES, a/k/a Rikichi,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00121-RJC-DSC-36)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.
ATTORNEY, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alexis Villalta-Morales pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering
enterprise, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963(a) (2012), attempted murder
in aid of a racketeering enterprise, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (2012),
and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in relation to a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court
sentenced Villalta-Morales below his advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range to 204 months’ imprisonment. In accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Villalta-Morales’
counsel has filed a brief certifying there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Villalta-Morales’
sentence is reasonable. Villalta-Morales has filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court
properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate
sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
2
49-51. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively
reasonable if it is within or below the Guidelines range, and this
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.
2014).
In this case, the record establishes that Villalta-Morales’
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this
case and Villalta-Morales’ pro se supplemental brief and have found
no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Villalta-Morales, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Villalta-Morales
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 Villalta-Morales.
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