UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4558
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUCIANO JAIMES TAVIRA, a/k/a Luciano Tavira Jaimes, a/k/a
Noel Martinez Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00040-WO-1; 1:08-cr-00443-WO-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nancy R. Gaines, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luciano Jaimes Tavira pled guilty, pursuant to written
plea agreements, to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
(2006), and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006); he was sentenced to a total term
of 292 months imprisonment. Tavira’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 Tavira’s sentence is substantively
unreasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Tavira has not done so. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized
2
explanation must accompany every sentence.”) (emphasis omitted);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(same). In addition, this court presumes on appeal that a
sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d
178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Tavira’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Tavira’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its
sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the
case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Tavira has not rebutted the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
We therefore find the sentence reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Tavira’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Tavira, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Tavira 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Tavira. 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