UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ALFONSO ALDRETE-CRUZ, a/k/a Carlos Cruz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00104-NCT-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Alfonso Aldrete-Cruz pled guilty to illegal re-
entry into the United States after committing an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). He
appeals his twenty-nine-month within-Guidelines sentence. His
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but arguing that Aldrete-Cruz should have received a
low-end Guidelines sentence. Aldrete-Cruz filed a supplemental
brief. ∗ We affirm.
An appellate court reviews a sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. First, the court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors,
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). The
∗
Aldrete-Cruz asserted, without legal support, that he
should not have received a criminal history point for one of his
prior misdemeanor convictions. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that this claim is without merit.
2
court also must consider 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). After reviewing the record, we conclude that
Aldrete-Cruz’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
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 Aldrete-Cruz, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Aldrete-Cruz 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 Aldrete-Cruz. 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
3