UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ISRAEL ANTONIO CABRERA, a/k/a Jose Antonio Cabrera, a/k/a
Isareal Antonnio Cabrera, a/k/a Isareal Antonio Cabrera,
a/k/a Israel Cabrera, a/k/a Israel A. Cabrera, a/k/a Isreal
A. Cabrera, a/k/a Jose N. Campos, a/k/a Israel Cabrara,
a/k/a X Israel, a/k/a Jose Campos,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00410-AJT-1)
Submitted: May 27, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Priya B.
Viswanath, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Israel Antonio Cabrera appeals from his conviction for
illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006) and
the resulting sixty-six-month sentence imposed. Counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Cabrera did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The
Government elected not to file a brief. We affirm.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following
a conviction, the court is to construe the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, assume its credibility, and
draw all favorable inferences. We will sustain the jury’s
verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir.
2005); United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.
2002). We have reviewed the record and find the evidence
sufficient to convict Cabrera.
A review of the record also reveals no error in
sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court
must calculate the appropriate advisory Sentencing 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
2
imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 41. The district court followed the
necessary procedural steps in sentencing Cabrera, appropriately
treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly
calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range,
considering Cabrera’s request for a downward variance, and
weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court provided
thorough 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 Cabrera’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Cabrera, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cabrera 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 Cabrera. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4