UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS JAVIER AMARO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00003-RJC-14)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Javier Amaro pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (“Count Two”),
and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006) (“Count Three”). The district court
sentenced him to a total of ninety months in prison, four years
of supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. On
appeal, counsel for Amaro filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court improperly rejected the plea agreement’s
recommendations and attributed five kilograms of cocaine to
Amaro as relevant conduct under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Amaro has not filed a supplemental pro se brief, despite notice
of his right to do so. We affirm Amaro’s convictions and
sentence.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district court did not commit any “significant procedural
error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court is not
required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every
2
subsection.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th
Cir. 2006). However, the district court “must place on the
record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular
facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment
need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a
rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate
to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50 (internal citation and footnote omitted)).
“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court, we review for abuse of discretion” and will “reverse
unless we conclude that the error was harmless.” United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). In assessing the
district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review the
district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Only if we
find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Carter, 564
F.3d at 328.
At sentencing Amaro objected to the district court’s
consideration of drug quantities in excess of the parties’ joint
recommendation in the plea agreement. However, pursuant to the
terms of the agreement itself, Amaro’s plea agreement was not
3
binding on the district court. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(B). Moreover, “[t]he district court has a separate
obligation . . . to make independent factual findings regarding
relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.” United States v.
Love, 134 F.3d 595, 605 (4th Cir. 1998). We find that the
district court did not clearly err in overruling the objection.
Furthermore, we find that the district court provided an
adequate, individualized explanation to support the sentence.
See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330. Our review of the record therefore
leads us to conclude that Amaro’s below-Guidelines sentence was
neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. See United
States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding
below—Guidelines sentence is entitled to presumption of
substantive reasonableness).
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 Amaro, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Amaro 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 Amaro.
4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5