United States v. Carlos ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4589
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO ROBLES CARLOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00366-JAB-11)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 23, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Robles Carlos pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). At sentencing, Carlos received the
benefit of the safety valve under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5C1.2 (2008), and was sentenced to ninety months’
imprisonment, below the statutory minimum of ten years. His
counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but raising for the court’s consideration whether the sentence
was reasonable. Carlos did not file a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government also did not file a brief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and conclude
that Carlos’ guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that the
district court complied with Rule 11. Accordingly, we affirm
the conviction.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. As to procedural reasonableness, this court must
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
2
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.; see also
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n
individualized explanation must accompany every sentence.”);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(same). An extensive explanation is not required as long as
this court is satisfied “‘that the district court has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
its own legal decision making authority.’” United States v.
Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)).
We conclude that the district court’s sentence was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court
adequately stated its reasons for imposing a ninety-month
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Carlos’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Carlos, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Carlos 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
3
was served on Carlos. 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
4