United States v. Luis Guzman-Villa ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4601
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS GUZMAN-VILLA, a/k/a David Roque-Sanchez, a/k/a Miguel
Ordaz-Chavez, a/k/a Benito Goicochea Pineda,
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. (1:12-cr-00044-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 7, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Luis Guzman-Villa pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to illegal reentry after having been convicted
of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to fifty months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review the
reasonableness of the fifty-month sentence. Although advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Guzman-Villa has
not done so. We affirm.
We review Guzman-Villa’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. We first 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 49–51; 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 the sentencing
2
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 defendant’s properly calculated
Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (permitting
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. We discern no error in the district court’s
computation of the applicable Guidelines range, the
opportunities it provided Guzman-Villa and his counsel to speak
in mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by
reference to the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Nor do we find any
basis in the record to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness we accord this within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Guzman-Villa’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered
and supported by an independent basis in fact. We therefore
affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform Guzman-Villa, in writing, of the right to
3
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Guzman-Villa 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 Guzman-Villa. 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
4