UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO CRUZ-CARRASCO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-4006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN EFRAIN CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District
Judge. (6:10-cr-00054-HFF-2; 6:10-cr-00054-HFF-9)
Submitted: August 3, 2011 Decided: August 18, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina; William T. Clarke, SARRATT & CLARKE,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew Burke
Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roberto Cruz-Carrasco
appeals the eighty-four-month within-Guidelines sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006).
Melvin Efrain Cruz appeals the eighty-four-month below-
Guidelines sentence imposed after he pled guilty to two counts
of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Counsel for Appellants filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal but
questioning whether the district court imposed reasonable
sentences. Cruz-Carrasco has filed a pro se supplemental brief. ∗
Cruz was informed of his right to file a pro se brief but has
not filed one. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
∗
Cruz-Carrasco asserts his actual innocence of possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. We
conclude that his claim lacks merit. With regard to Cruz-
Carrasco’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance,
we decline to review that claim on direct appeal. See United
States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006)
(providing standard).
3
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for “significant
procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from
the Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We next assess the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account
the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51). Because Appellants received the sentences they requested,
our review is for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 577-78, 580 (4th Cir. 2010); see also United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing claim of
procedural unreasonableness for plain error because defendant
did not argue for sentence different from sentence he received).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed Cruz-
Carrasco’s and Cruz’s sentencing proceedings. The district
court properly calculated Appellants’ Guidelines ranges and
offered sufficiently reasoned explanations for the sentences
4
imposed. We therefore conclude that Appellants’ sentences are
procedurally and substantively sound.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgments. This court
requires that counsel inform their clients, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If either client 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 his 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
5