UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO-MACIAS, a/k/a Juan Antonio Medrone-
Macias, a/k/a Juan Antonio Madrano-Mecias,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00016-JAB-1)
Submitted: July 16, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Eagles Rand, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Antonio Medrano-Macias pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to unlawful reentry of an aggravated felon, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). The district
court sentenced Medrano-Macias to 70 months’ imprisonment and 3
years’ supervised release. 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 sentence is reasonable. Medrano-Macias has not filed a
supplemental pro se brief, despite receiving notice of his right
to do so. We affirm.
We review a sentence 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. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. If there are no procedural
errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
2
at 51. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within
the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted
by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
In this case, the record establishes that Medrano-Macias’
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. We
reject Medrano-Macias’ claim that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court could have accounted for
the time he served in state custody. Although the district
court had the discretion to issue a lower sentence, it was not
required to do so, and we must give “due deference to the
district court’s decision.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder
of the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds
for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
and deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw. This
court requires that counsel inform Medrano-Macias, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Medrano-Macias requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion for leave to
3
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Medrano-Macias.
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