United States v. Valencia ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN MEDINA VALENCIA, a/k/a Carlos Diaz-Rios,
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. (1:09-cr-00139-JAB-1)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Medina Valencia pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to illegal reentry of a felon, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2006). He was
sentenced to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. Valencia’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether
Valencia’s sentence is reasonable. Valencia was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
The Government declined to file a response. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at 51.
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). We then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed,
2
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
the Guidelines range and heard argument from the counsel.
Pursuant to our Anders review, we note the district court did
not articulate its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors or
give an individualized assessment for its chosen sentence.
However, we conclude that any such omission did not affect
Valencia’s substantial rights. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding no plain error in district
court’s brief explanation of chosen sentence, given that defense
counsel argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range and
the defendant received such a sentence). Here, defense counsel
advocated for a sentence at the low end of the advisory
Guidelines range and Valencia received the lowest possible
sentence within the Guidelines range. Furthermore, Valencia
offers no grounds to rebut the appellate presumption of
reasonableness afforded a within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Valencia.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Valencia, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Valencia 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 Valencia. 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