UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN CARLOS PERRERA CORTEZ, a/k/a Juan Hernandez, Jr., a/k/a
Juan Cortez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00223)
Submitted: April 28, 2008 Decided: May 23, 2008
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Algernon Williams, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF ALGERNON WILLIAMS, SR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Juan Carlos Perrera Cortez
pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2000). The district court sentenced him to 121 months in prison.
Cortez timely appealed. Cortez’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning the reasonableness of Cortez’s sentence on the ground
that the district court failed to adequately consider the factors
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
We review the sentence imposed by the district court for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
In reviewing the sentence, the appellate court must first determine
whether the district court committed “significant” procedural
error, such as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)
the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from
the Guidelines range.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the sentence
“is procedurally sound,” the appellate court then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive
reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of
- 2 -
the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.
Cortez contends that the district court failed to
adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors in determining his
sentence. A district court must explain the sentence it imposes
sufficiently for the appellate court to effectively review its
reasonableness, but need not mechanically discuss all the factors
listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
380 (4th Cir. 2006). The court’s explanation should indicate that
it considered the § 3553(a) factors and the arguments raised by the
parties. Id. We do not evaluate the adequacy of the district
court’s explanation “in a vacuum,” but also consider “[t]he context
surrounding a district court’s explanation.” Id. at 381.
In this case, although the district court did not discuss
individual § 3553(a) factors at sentencing, the court indicated
that it considered the guidelines advisory, heard argument
regarding the § 3553(a) factors, and found that the circumstances
of the case did not distinguish Cortez from other “defendants who
face a 121 month guideline minimum.” We find that the district
court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors in stating its
reasons for Cortez’s sentence and that the district court did not
otherwise abuse its discretion in determining Cortez’s sentence.
Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court is reasonable.
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.* We
therefore affirm Cortez’s conviction and sentence. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is denied. This court requires that counsel
inform Cortez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Cortez 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 Cortez. 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
*
We have reviewed the issues raised in Cortez’s pro se
supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
- 4 -