UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE GARCIA ESTRADA, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00161-NCT)
Submitted: December 3, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On July 6, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jose
Garcia Estrada, Jr., pled guilty to Count Two of an eight count
indictment, possession of a firearm during and in relation to a
drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (West
2000 and Supp. 2007). Prior to sentencing, the probation office
prepared a presentence report, in which it determined Estrada to be
a career offender. As Estrada was convicted of violating § 924(c)
and determined to be a career offender, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4B1.1(c)(3) provided the applicable advisory guidelines
range. Based on Estrada’s acceptance of responsibility and a three
point reduction for that acceptance, section 4B1.1(c)(3)
recommended an advisory range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.
On January 9, 2007, the district court sentenced Estrada
to 280 months’ imprisonment. Estrada timely noted his appeal and
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967).* In his Anders brief, Estrada questions whether his
sentence was reasonable. We affirm the judgment of the district
court.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing.
The district court must calculate the appropriate advisory
*
Estrada was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief. He has elected not to do so.
- 2 -
guidelines range by making any necessary factual findings. United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). The court
should then consider the resulting advisory guideline range in
conjunction with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West
2000 and Supp. 2007), and determine an appropriate sentence.
United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006).
However, considering the factors in § 3553(a) does not require the
sentencing court to “robotically tick through” every subsection of
§ 3553(a). United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th
Cir. 2006). On appeal, this court will affirm a sentence that
falls “within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”
Moreland, 437 F.3d at 433. A sentence within a properly calculated
advisory guideline range is presumed to be reasonable. Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007).
Here, Estrada’s sentence was both substantively and
procedurally reasonable. Estrada began committing felonies at age
fourteen and his involvement with crime has continued unabated.
Estrada is only twenty-seven years old. However, in thirteen
years, Estrada has accumulated multiple felony convictions, a
number of which involve guns and drugs. Estrada’s sentence, near
the lower end of his guideline range, appropriately reflects his
serious criminal history.
Similarly, Estrada’s sentence was procedurally
reasonable. Prior to sentencing Estrada, the district court
- 3 -
properly determined Estrada’s advisory guideline range, heard the
argument of counsel, and rejected defense counsel’s position that
Estrada had a drug addiction. The context surrounding the
imposition of Estrada’s sentence indicates that the court
considered the arguments and recommendations of counsel and the
factors in § 3553(a). See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381.
Accordingly, we determine that the sentence was reasonable. Rita,
127 S. Ct. at 2459.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Estrada, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Estrada 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 Estrada.
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 -