UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4592
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE JOAQUIN MORALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00514-RWT-1)
Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 11, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Joaquin Morales pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute heroin and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute marijuana, both in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Morales
to 262 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Morales challenges the reasonableness of
the sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d
330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine 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) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will
presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated
advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
2
Morales argues both that the district court failed to
adequately consider his sentencing arguments in mitigation and
that the sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the
sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the
parties’ arguments, and thoroughly explained its reasoning for
the sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009) (district court must conduct individualized
assessment based on the particular facts of each case, whether
sentence is above, below, or within the Guidelines range). In
addition, we conclude that Morales has failed to overcome the
presumption of reasonableness applied to his within-Guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 271 (4th
Cir. 2008) (appellate court’s conclusion that a different
sentence might be appropriate is insufficient to justify
reversal of the district court’s judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
3