UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4659
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ-PEREZ, a/k/a Prieto,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:06-cr-00158-SB-3)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.C., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Jimenez-Perez pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
and was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120
months imprisonment. Jimenez-Perez’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Jimenez-Perez’s sentence was reasonable.
Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, Jimenez-Perez has not done so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We
must first ensure that the district court did not commit any
“significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly
calculate the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range,
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or adequately
explain the sentence. Id. at 51. Once we have determined there
is no procedural error, we must consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. Id. If the sentence imposed is within
the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it on appeal to be
presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
2
338, 341 (2007); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court properly calculated Jimenez-Perez’s Guidelines range,
taking into account the ten-year statutory mandatory minimum
sentence. Jimenez-Perez’s within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively reasonable on appeal and he has not rebutted that
presumption. Therefore, we find that the district court
committed no reversible error in sentencing Jimenez-Perez to the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Jimenez-Perez, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jimenez-Perez requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Jimenez-Perez. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3