UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4028
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGEL MEDEL LORENZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00279-WO-1)
Submitted: August 14, 2014 Decided: August 21, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angel Medel Lorenzo pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to smuggle and attempt to
smuggle firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories from the
United States into Mexico, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2012), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising for the court’s
consideration whether Lorenzo’s guilty pleas were knowing and
voluntary and whether the court should have granted his motion
to withdraw the pleas. Lorenzo has filed a pro se supplemental
brief challenging the sentence. The Government did not file a
brief. We affirm.
We have reviewed Lorenzo’s guilty plea hearing and
conclude that the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We also conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorenzo’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we affirm the
convictions.
We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–
2
Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2012). The first step
requires that we ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Sentencing Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) 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 range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th Cir. 2009). If we conclude
that a sentence is free of significant procedural error, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record shows no procedural error.
We conclude that the sentence was procedurally and substantively
reasonable. We have considered Lorenzo’s challenges to his
sentence and found them to be without merit. We note that the
rule announced in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151
(2013) has no bearing on Lorenzo’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Lorenzo’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Lorenzo, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Lorenzo 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 Lorenzo.
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