UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4149
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDER ALFARO RUIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00036-NCT-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eder Alfaro Ruiz pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).
Ruiz was sentenced to a total of 121 months’ imprisonment. Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed by
the district court is reasonable. Although Ruiz was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he did not do so,
and the Government elected not to file a responding brief.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range and consider it
in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591.
Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be presumed
reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007).
2
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Ruiz, appropriately treating the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. Furthermore, Ruiz’s 121-month sentence, which is at the
low end of the Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum,
may be presumed reasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his 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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3