UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LUIS JOSE GRANADOS-ARVIZU,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00414-JAB-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Jose Granados-Arvizu (“Granados”) pled guilty,
pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession
with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010), and
one count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)
(2006). The district court calculated Granados’s Guidelines
range on the methamphetamine count at 87 to 108 months’
imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
(2009). Additionally, Granados was subject to a statutorily
mandated consecutive sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment on
the firearms count, and this became his Guidelines sentence on
that count. The district court sentenced Granados to ninety-six
months’ imprisonment on the methamphetamine count and a
consecutive sentence of sixty months’ imprisonment on the
firearms count, for an aggregate sentence of 156 months’
imprisonment. Granados appeals his sentence. We affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range,” under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This
review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 51.
2
Granados challenges the substantive reasonableness of the
156-month prison sentence, but does not contest its procedural
reasonableness.
When reviewing a sentence for substantive
reasonableness, we take into account “the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. This court accords a sentence within a
properly-calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of
reasonableness. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261
(4th Cir. 2008). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Further, “[a] statutorily required
sentence . . . is per se reasonable.” United States v. Farrior,
535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs
and conclude that the 156-month sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. The ninety-six month sentence on the
methamphetamine count falls within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, and Granados fails to overcome the appellate
presumption of reasonableness afforded that sentence. Further,
the sixty-month consecutive sentence on the firearms count was
required by statute and is therefore per se reasonable.
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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