UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN FLORES-ZUNIGA, a/k/a Carlos Aquino-Zuniga, a/k/a Juan
Resendez Flores, a/k/a Mario Recendiz Diarcia,
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. (1:09-cr-00074-NCT-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Flores-Zuniga appeals his conviction and seventy-
seven month sentence for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Flores-
Zuniga’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there are no
meritorious issues on appeal but questioning whether Flores-
Zuniga’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Flores-Zuniga
did not file a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has
declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Appellate courts are charged with reviewing sentences
for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining
procedural reasonableness, we first assess whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines
range. Id. at 49-50. We then determine whether the district
court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors
and any arguments presented by the parties, treated the
guidelines as mandatory, selected a sentence based on “clearly
erroneous facts,” or failed to sufficiently explain the selected
sentence. Id. at 51; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007).
Finally, we review the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “taking into account the ‘totality of the
2
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 51). We afford sentences that fall within the properly
calculated guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness, see
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, which can only be rebutted by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d
375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). After reviewing the record, we conclude that Flores-
Zuniga’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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
3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4