UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE ZARATE-CASTILLO, a/k/a Jose Diaz-Mendez, a/k/a
Bartolome Avellaneda Marin,
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-00062-WO-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., MERRITT, FLEBOTTE, WILSON, WEBB & CARUSO,
PLLC, Durham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jorge Zarate-Castillo appeals his conviction and
eighty-seven month sentence for illegal reentry after being
convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions,
however, whether the district court erred in failing to run
Zarate-Castillo’s sentence concurrently with his undischarged
state sentence. Zarate-Castillo has filed a pro se supplemental
brief in which he contends that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record to ascertain whether there are any meritorious issues
for appeal. Our review of the plea colloquy discloses that the
district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 in accepting Zarate-Castillo’s guilty plea. The district
court ensured that the plea was entered knowingly and
voluntarily and was supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm Zarate-Castillo’s conviction.
We review Zarate-Castillo’s sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review
2
requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. We assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If
there is no procedural error, we review 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 § 3553(a).” United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
sentence is within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption
of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory
guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, made an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented, and
adequately explained the reasons for its chosen sentence.
3
Moreover, Zarate-Castillo 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).
Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to run Zarate-Castillo’s sentence consecutive
to his undischarged state sentence. See United States v.
Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1995) (setting forth
standard of review).
Finally, in his pro se supplemental brief, Zarate-
Castillo contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to
oppose the imposition of a consecutive sentence; failing to
object to or explain the various aliases attributed to Zarate-
Castillo; failing to correct the Government’s assertion that he
had served only nine months of his state sentence; and
exhibiting a “lack of diligent preparation and zelous [sic]
representation.” Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
however, are generally not cognizable on direct appeal, unless
counsel’s “ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the
record.” United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006). Because it does not conclusively appear from the
record that Zarate-Castillo received ineffective assistance of
counsel, we decline to consider his claims on direct appeal.
4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and found no meritorious issues on appeal. We therefore affirm
the judgment of the district court. At this juncture, 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 expressed in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5