United States v. Daniel Rodriguez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00481-JMC-11)
Submitted: December 28, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2016
Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Rodriguez appeals the district court’s judgment and
his sentence after the jury convicted him of drug conspiracy and
two related charges. Rodriguez’s attorney has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issues of
whether the district court erred in determining the drug weight
by a preponderance of the evidence and in concluding that
Rodriguez possessed a gun in connection with the drug conspiracy
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2014)
when he was acquitted by the jury of a charge under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). Rodriguez was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
First, we consider whether the district court committed any
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining whether
the Guidelines calculation was proper, we review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Dodd, 770 F.3d 306, 309
(4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1514 (2015). If the
sentence is procedurally reasonable, we then consider its
2
substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of
the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a
sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). A defendant can only rebut the
presumption by showing the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court correctly calculated Rodriguez’s Guidelines range, and his
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. It was
not error for the district court to find a higher drug weight by
a preponderance of the evidence than the threshold weight found
by the jury; nor was it error for the district court to apply
the enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) after the jury found
Rodriguez not guilty of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) charge.
See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560-63 (4th Cir.
2008). Moreover, we have reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in making these findings.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
3
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client. 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