United States v. Juventino Rodriguez , 675 F. App'x 332 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4449
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUVENTINO BENITEZ RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00415-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juventino Benitez Rodriguez pled guilty to distribution of
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). He was sentenced to a total term of 134
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
the reasonableness of Rodriguez’s sentence. Although informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rodriguez has
not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Rodriguez’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties
2
an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered
the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence
not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained
the chosen sentence. Furthermore, Rodriguez’s sentence was
within the Guidelines range. Therefore, we conclude that
Rodriguez’s sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Rodriguez 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 Rodriguez. 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