UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDGARDO BARRON-ESPINOSA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00259-F-2)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey A. Phipps, STACEY A. PHIPPS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edgardo Barron-Espinosa pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 120-months’
imprisonment. Barron-Espinosa’s counsel filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but raising a policy argument as to the disparity in
Barron-Espinosa’s sentence compared to that of his co-conspirator
who, counsel argued, had a higher position in the conspiracy than
Barron-Espinosa. Barron-Espinosa filed a pro se supplemental
brief challenging the drug quantity attributed to him and the
sentencing enhancements imposed for a supervisory role and for
maintaining a premises for drug trafficking. Concluding that the
district court did not err, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-
of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). In so doing, the court examines 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. A district court must conduct
2
an “individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every
sentence, whether the court imposes a sentence above, below, or
within the Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
The district court appropriately determined that Barron-
Espinosa was responsible for the distribution of 24 kilograms of
cocaine based on his admissions and his stipulation in the plea
agreement that he was attributable with at least 15 but not more
than 150 kilograms of cocaine. The court properly increased
Barron-Espinosa’s offense level based on his possession of a
firearm, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(1)
(2013); his supervisory role based on his recruiting two persons
and directing their activities, USSG § 3B1.1(c); and maintaining
a premises for the purpose of drug trafficking, USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(12). Applying the new drug table per the Government’s
stipulation and reducing Barron-Espinosa’s offense level for
acceptance of responsibility, the district court correctly
computed Barron-Espinosa’s advisory Guidelines range as 168 to 210
months. After considering the Government’s motion and the relevant
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), the court imposed
a 120-month sentence.
Counsel suggests that the sentence imposed is procedurally
unreasonable because it resulted in sentence disparity between
Barron-Espinosa and his co-conspirator. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
3
(2012) (requiring court to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct”). Although the court
did not explicitly address this sentencing disparity argument, the
court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed
and did not commit procedural error. See United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (court need not “robotically
tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection”).
We conclude that the court adequately explained its reasons
for the sentence imposed and that 120-month sentence is not
unreasonable and not an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate
presumption of reasonableness to a sentence imposed within a
properly calculated advisory Guidelines range); see also Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption
of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Barron-Espinosa’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Barron-Espinosa, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Barron-Espinosa 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
4
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on Barron-Espinosa. 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
5