UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE MANZANAREZ, a/k/a Fabian Manzanarez, a/k/a Favion
Manzanerez, a/k/a Jose Hernandez-Mansaneras,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00460-DCN-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Thomas
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Manzanarez appeals his conviction and fifty-
seven-month sentence imposed by the district court following a
guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C) (2006). Manzanarez’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Manzanarez’s plea, and
whether the sentence is reasonable. Manzanarez was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Because Manzanarez did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error,
[Manzanarez] must show that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.”
United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court fully complied with Rule 11, and that Manzanarez’s guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary.
We review Manzanarez’s sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
2
first step in this review requires us to ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error.
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).
Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range’” or “‘failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors.’” United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.).
We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Mazanarez. The district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range, considered the parties arguments, made an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented, and
adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence. The
district court sentenced Manzanarez within the properly
calculated Guidelines range, and Manzanarez has failed to rebut
the presumption of reasonableness accorded that sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Manzanarez’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Manzanarez in
writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Manzanarez requests that a
3
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 Manzanarez. 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