UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4436
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDWIN GALVEZ-BERGANZA, a/k/a El Gato,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00135-DKC-2)
Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 9, 2014
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUSBONSIB, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Assistant United States
Attorney, Mara Zusman Greenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Galvez-Berganza appeals his conviction and
180-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court committed reversible error during
Galvez-Berganza’s plea and sentencing hearings. Galvez-Berganza
was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief
but has not done so. We affirm.
Because Galvez-Berganza did not seek to withdraw his
guilty plea, we review his plea colloquy for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002);
see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013)
(discussing plain error standard). We conclude that the
district court substantially complied with the requirements of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Galvez-Berganza’s guilty plea.
Although the district court failed to ensure that
Galvez-Berganza understood the Government’s right to use his
statements under oath in a prosecution for perjury, see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(A), this minor deviation did not affect
Galvez-Berganza’s substantial rights. See United States v.
2
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining
defendant’s burden to establish effect on substantial rights).
Moreover, the court ensured that the plea was knowing,
voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore
affirm Galvez-Berganza’s conviction.
Turning to Galvez-Berganza’s sentence, we review it
for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This
review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and discern no procedural
error in Galvez-Berganza’s sentence. The district court
properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and explained its reasons for
the sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The court sentenced
Galvez-Berganza within the Guidelines range, and he fails to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Galvez-Berganza.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
3
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Galvez-Berganza, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Galvez-Berganza 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 Galvez-Berganza. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4