UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5147
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE ASUNCION TORRES, a/k/a Fredy Chon, a/k/a Jose Asuncion
Torres-Bonilla,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00441-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 21, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Asuncion Torres pleaded guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after having been deported
following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced
Torres to fifty-seven months of imprisonment and he now appeals.
His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was
unreasonable. Although Torres was informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so
doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines
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 . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We then “‘consider
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’”
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting
2
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). If
the sentence is within the guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines
range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, responded to Torres’
statements at sentencing, and thoroughly explained its chosen
sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009) (district court must conduct individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of each case, whether
sentence is above, below, or within the guidelines range).
Moreover, Torres has failed to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness we accord his within-guidelines sentence. See
United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Torres, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Torres requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
3
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 Torres. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4