UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4812
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BALLARDO SOLAN GARCIA, a/k/a Bayardo Solano Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00240-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ballardo Solan Garcia pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to being an illegal alien in possession
of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and was
sentenced to ten months of imprisonment. On appeal, Garcia’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it
accepted Garcia’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of Garcia’s
sentence. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental
pro se brief, Garcia has not done so. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We conclude, based on our review of the transcript of
Garcia’s guilty plea hearing, that the district court fully
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Garcia’s guilty plea. The
court ensured that Garcia understood the charges against him and
the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea
knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an
independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119–20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm
Garcia’s conviction.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
2
38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
First, this court must assess whether the district court
properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) 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). We 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).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (permitting appellate
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Here, the district court correctly calculated and
considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from
counsel and allocution from Garcia. The court considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of the offense. Further, Garcia offers no grounds
to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines
3
sentence of ten months’ imprisonment is substantively
reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Garcia.
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 Garcia, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Garcia 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 Garcia. 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