United States v. Javier Ramos , 491 F. App'x 435 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVIER RAMOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Edward Yeager, Jr., Cornelius, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John George Guise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Javier Ramos pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment.
He noted a timely appeal. Ramos’ counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the district court erred at sentencing in
denying Ramos’ request for a downward variance from the
Sentencing Guidelines range of 70-87 months. Although informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Ramos has not
done so. We affirm.
We review Ramos’ sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id. We assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural
error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether
2
the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in §
3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines
range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (upholding appellate
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Moreover, Ramos has failed to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Ramos’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Ramos, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Ramos 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 Ramos.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4