United States v. Alvaro Alas , 436 F. App'x 164 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Balmore Alas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew
Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvaro Ezequeil Alas was sentenced to 224 months of
imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). His attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
nevertheless arguing that the sentence imposed is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to make an
individualized assessment of the facts presented and failed to
sufficiently state the reasons for the sentence imposed. Alas
filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the district court
plainly erred in imposing a two-level leadership role sentencing
enhancement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In determining the
procedural reasonableness of the sentence, we consider whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on
the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Where, as here, the district court
imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation may be
“less extensive, while still individualized.” United States v.
Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 2128 (2010). Generally, a court provides an adequate
explanation for a Guidelines sentence when it indicates that it
is “rest[ing] [its] decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning
that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of
§ 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case,
and that the judge has found that the case before him is
typical.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Counsel did not preserve a claim of error, and thus
our review is for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 579-80 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that the district
court adequately explained its chosen sentence. Moreover, Alas
fails to show that the lack of a more detailed explanation had a
prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. United States v.
Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005).
We review the district court’s decision to apply a
sentencing adjustment based on the defendant’s role in the
3
offense for clear error. United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219,
224 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant qualifies for a two-level
enhancement if he was “an organizer, leader, manager, or
supervisor in any criminal activity.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2010). “Leadership over only one
other participant is sufficient as long as there is some control
exercised.” United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th
Cir. 2003). We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in imposing a two-level leadership enhancement.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Alas’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Alas, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Alas 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 Alas. 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