UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4969
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROGELIO BERRA DE LA PAZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00049-WO-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rogelio Berra De La Paz appeals the 135-month sentence
imposed following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm by an illegal
alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006). On appeal,
De La Paz’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she concludes that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the
reasonableness of the sentence. De La Paz was informed of his
right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but he has failed to
file one. We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for procedural and
substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
District courts are required to properly calculate the
Guidelines range, consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, analyze any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explain the selected sentence. Id.; see also
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n
individualized explanation must accompany every sentence.”);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(same). The district court’s explanation need not be extensive,
so long as we are satisfied “‘that the district court has
2
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United
States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). Finally, 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).
Counsel has failed to identify any reversible error in
the imposition of De La Paz’s within-Guidelines sentence. The
record indicates that the district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing De La Paz. Moreover, we do not
believe that De La Paz’s sentence is substantively unreasonable
under the circumstances of this case. Thus, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing De
La Paz.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and found no other issues of arguable merit. Therefore,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform her client, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
3
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 presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4