UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4697
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARTIN VILLANUEVA-BALCAZAR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00378-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 12, 2010
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., MERRITT, FLEBOTTE, WILSON, WEBB & CARUSO,
PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Villanueva-Balcazar pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute
100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2006). The district court calculated
Villanueva-Balcazar’s Guidelines range at 87 to 108 months’
imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007), and
sentenced him to 98 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court erred in accepting
Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty plea. Villanueva-Balcazar was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so. We affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review. Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, Villanueva-Balcazar
did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea.
Accordingly, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of
the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district
court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 in accepting Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty plea and that
2
the court’s omissions did not affect his substantial rights.
Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court
ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis
and that Villanueva-Balcazar entered the plea knowingly and
voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20
(4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the
district court’s acceptance of Villanueva-Balcazar’s guilty
plea.
We review Villanueva-Balcazar’s sentence under a
“deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In conducting this review, we
“must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. “When rendering a sentence, the
district court must make an individualized assessment based on
the facts presented,” applying the “relevant § 3553(a) factors
to the specific circumstances of the case before it.” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also
3
“state in open court the particular reasons supporting its
chosen sentence,” id., but, “[w]hen imposing a sentence within
the Guidelines, . . . the [court’s] explanation need not be
elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves
are in many ways tailored to the individual and reflect
approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy,” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,
271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
If the sentence is free of procedural error, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is within the appropriate
Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal
that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528
F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from
Villanueva-Balcazar’s counsel and allocution from
Villanueva-Balcazar. The court made an individualized
assessment of the sentencing factors before it, and counsel and
Villanueva-Balcazar fail to overcome the appellate presumption
of reasonableness afforded the within-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing sentence.
4
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Villanueva-Balcazar, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Villanueva-Balcazar
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
Villanueva-Balcazar. 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
5