UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4523
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAMIRO ALVAREZ-RUBIO, a/k/a Juan Alvarez Castro, a/k/a
Roberto Lainez, a/k/a Leonardo Fabio Alvarez-Santos,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00370-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ramiro Alvarez-Rubio appeals his sentence to sixty-
four months in prison and three years of supervised release
imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry of a deported
alien after having been convicted of an aggravated felony in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Alvarez-Rubio’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 in imposing a sentence of sixty-four
months of imprisonment as punishment in this case. Alvarez-
Rubio was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (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, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 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
Alvarez-Rubio, and his sentence at the middle of his advisory
guideline range is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court properly determined his guideline range was
fifty-seven to seventy-one months in prison based on a total
offense level of twenty-one and criminal history category of IV.
At sentencing, Alvarez-Rubio noted he came from a poor country
to the United States to succeed and help his family, and he
requested a sentence at the lower end of the guideline range.
The district court confirmed Alvarez-Rubio had been
deported twice and had illegally returned both times, and he had
not served long sentences for his two prior aggravated felony
convictions. In sentencing him to the middle of his guideline
range, the court noted it had taken into account the financial
condition and personal situation that brought him to this
country, but the court also considered the need for the sentence
to deter further criminal conduct and promote respect for the
law. Since Alvarez-Rubio illegally returned to the United
States within five months of being deported a second time, it
was apparent that his prior prison sentences were insufficient
3
for purposes of deterrence. Thus, the court properly concluded
a sixty-four month sentence was reasonable in this 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
4