UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIAN QUEZADA, a/k/a Oswaldo Hernandez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00330-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: January 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Quezada appeals the sixty-five month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering this
country after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and
deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006).
Quezada’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the
reasonableness of Quezada’s sentence. Although advised of his
right to do so, Quezada has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We first conclude Quezada’s sentence was reasonable.
As determined by the Supreme Court, “[r]egardless of whether the
sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the
appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
597 (2007). Appellate courts are charged with reviewing
sentences for reasonableness. Id. at 594, 597. Reasonableness
review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 597.
In determining whether a sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. Id. at
596-97. We must then consider whether the district court failed
2
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any
arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on
“clearly erroneous facts,” or failed to sufficiently explain the
selected sentence. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511
F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account
the ‘totality of the circumstances.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473
(quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). We afford sentences that
fall within the properly calculated Guidelines range a
presumption of reasonableness, see id., as permitted by the
Supreme Court. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007).
The district court properly calculated Quezada’s
sentencing range under the Guidelines * and invited counsel to
make any relevant argument pursuant to the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. After hearing counsel’s arguments, permitting Quezada
the opportunity to make a statement, and considering the
§ 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Quezada to sixty-five
months’ imprisonment, in the middle of the applicable Guidelines
*
The district court calculated that Quezada’s total
adjusted offense level was twenty-one and that he had seven
criminal history points. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) §§ 2L1.2, 4A1.1 (2007). Thus, with a category IV
criminal history, Quezada’s advisory Guidelines range was fifty-
seven to seventy-one months’ imprisonment. USSG ch. 5, pt. A,
sentencing table.
3
range. As our review of the record reveals no procedural or
substantive defect in Quezada’s sentence, he cannot overcome the
presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his sentence.
Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2459, 2462.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
entirety of the record and found no meritorious issues.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
require that counsel inform Quezada, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Quezada 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 Quezada. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4