UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4455
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROGELIO GARCIA PENAFIEL,
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-00227-NCT-3)
Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rogelio Garcia Penafiel appeals his conviction and the
district court’s judgment imposing a sentence of sixty-five
months in prison and four years of supervised release after
pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute five hundred grams
or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). On appeal, Penafiel’s attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district
court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Penafiel was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Penafiel’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). The
first step in this review requires us to ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as improperly calculating the guideline range. United States
v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When
reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence
2
within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Penafiel, and his sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court correctly found his guideline
range was sixty to seventy-one months and reasonably concluded a
sentence in the middle of the range was appropriate in his case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 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 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
3