UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOMINGO FLORES-ARRELLANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00487-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Domingo Flores-Arrellano pleaded guilty to one count
of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
possession with intent to distribute 1000 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A) (2006), and one count of possessing firearms in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(a)(1) (2006). The district court imposed a
184-month sentence. Counsel for Flores-Arrellano filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court fashioned a reasonable
sentence in light of the substantial assistance Flores-Arrellano
provided. Flores-Arrellano did not file a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government elected not to file a brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
2
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41.
Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed
by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Flores-Arrellano, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, granting the
Government’s motion for a substantial assistance reduction under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2009), and weighing
the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court provided sufficient
reasoning for the below-Guidelines sentence. * We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Flores-Arrellano, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Flores-Arrellano requests that a petition be
*
To the extent that Flores-Arrellano challenges the
sufficiency and extent of the departure simply because of his
dissatisfaction with it, this court does not have jurisdiction
to consider that claim. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324
(4th Cir. 1995).
3
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 Flores-Arrellano.
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