UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4096
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE SARDINETAS SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:07-cr-00030-gec-6)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Spurell, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Sardinetas Sanchez appeals from the 210-month
sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that, after a review of the record, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Sanchez has not filed an
informal supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to
file a brief. Sanchez’s Anders brief argues that his sentence
may not be reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Sanchez’s sentence under a deferential abuse
of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 590 (2007). The first step in this review requires the
court to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). Other significant
procedural errors include “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.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The
court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Id. This court presumes that a sentence within a properly
2
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In sentencing, the district court should first
calculate the Guidelines range and give the parties an
opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem
appropriate. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). The court should then consider the 28 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors to determine whether they support the
sentence requested by either party. Id. While a district court
must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it
need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor
on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence
within a properly calculated Guidelines range. United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Here, the court correctly calculated the Guidelines
range and then gave both parties the opportunity to argue for
whatever sentence they deemed appropriate. Thus, the district
court committed no procedural or substantive error, and
Sanchez’s sentence, which was within the calculated Guidelines
range, is presumptively reasonable. Therefore, we conclude that
there was no abuse of discretion by the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Sanchez’s judgment of conviction. This
3
court requires that counsel inform Sanchez, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Sanchez 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 Sanchez.
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