UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4612
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS SOTO QUINTERO, a/k/a Siete,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00009-LMB-1)
Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: February 4, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Salvato, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Elizabeth A. Gerlach, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Soto Quintero appeals his conviction and 192
month sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute five
kilograms or more of powder cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). He argues that the district court
erred in calculating his advisory Guidelines range by assessing
a four-level enhancement to his offense level for a leadership
role in the conspiracy, and he argues that the court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We review Quintero’s sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. 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 Guidelines
range.” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks, citations and alterations omitted),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
I. Leadership Role
Quintero first claims that the district court erred in
assessing a four-level enhancement for being a leader of the
2
conspiracy. He argues that, at the very least, the district
court’s factual findings were insufficient to justify the
imposition of a leadership enhancement. We do not agree.
In conducting a review for reasonableness, we review
“legal questions, including the interpretation of the
guidelines, de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for
clear error.” United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433
(4th Cir. 2006). In particular, we “review a district court’s
decision to apply a sentencing adjustment based on the
defendant’s role in the offense for clear error.” United
States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002).
Under USSG § 3B1.1(a), an offense level is enhanced
four levels if “the defendant was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was
otherwise extensive.” Factors distinguishing a leadership role
from that of a mere participant or a manager include
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature
of participation in the commission of the offense, the
recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a
larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
participation in planning or organizing the offense,
the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the
degree of control and authority exercised over others.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4 (2009).
We note that Quintero does not make any argument why
the leadership enhancement should not apply in light of the
allegations that he provided cell phones to his accomplices to
3
help avoid detection, that he directed the activities of his co-
conspirators, and that he supplied cocaine to numerous
customers. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court did not err in applying the USSG § 3B1.1
enhancement.
II. Substantive Reasonableness
Quintero next argues that the court erred by imposing
a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. He claims that
the court gave insufficient consideration to mitigating factors
and his 192 month sentence is “unreasonable under the
circumstances.”
Even if the sentence is procedurally reasonable, this
court must consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)].” United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). This court presumes
on appeal that a sentence 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 considered and did not abuse its discretion in
4
rejecting Quintero’s request for a downward variance. The court
considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and imposed a
sentence consistent with those factors. Accordingly, we
conclude that Quintero has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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