UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOAN MANZANARES SOLIS, a/k/a Johan Manzanares Solis, a/k/a
Carlos Torres Castaneda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00021-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joan Manzanares Solis appeals his sentence of fifteen
months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of a
deported alien subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). Solis’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issue of whether his sentence is
unreasonable. Solis was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. McManus, 734
F.3d 315, 317 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). First, we consider whether the district
court committed any significant procedural error, such as
improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider
the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 340 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 2747 (2013). If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we
then consider its substantive reasonableness, taking into
account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated
2
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In sentencing, the district court must first correctly
calculate the defendant’s sentencing range under the Sentencing
Guidelines. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340. The district court
is next required to give the parties an opportunity to argue for
what they believe is an appropriate sentence, and the court must
consider those arguments in light of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). Allmendinger, 706 F.3d at 340.
When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make and place on the record an individualized assessment based
on the particular facts of the case. United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). In explaining the
sentence, the “sentencing judge should set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory
factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly
reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Solis’s
sentence is reasonable. The district court properly calculated
his Guidelines range and reasonably determined a sentence at the
3
low end of the range, to run consecutively to his six-month
sentence for violating his supervised release on a prior federal
conviction, was appropriate in this case. The district court
explained that it sentenced Solis at the low end of his
Guidelines range based on his arguments. However, the court
denied his request for a concurrent sentence because it would
not serve the purposes of sentencing, and a consecutive sentence
was appropriate based on his repeated offenses and disregard for
the law. On appeal, Solis contends his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable, because the district court “failed to provide an
individualized assessment of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors considered in imposing the chosen sentence.” However,
our review of the record convinces us that the district court
considered the § 3553(a) factors and rendered an individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
4
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
5