United States v. Daniel Delgado , 501 F. App'x 300 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL DAVID GUERRA DELGADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00082-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 14, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel David Guerra Delgado pleaded guilty to
illegally reentering the United States after having previously
been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district
court sentenced Delgado to forty-one months of imprisonment, and
he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the sentence was reasonable. Although Delgado was informed of
the right to file a supplemental pro se brief he has not done
so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the sentence at the low end
of the advisory Guidelines range was reasonable. We review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see
also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal
that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
2
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the sentence was reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Delgado, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Delgado 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 Delgado. 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