UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5001
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JILBERTO BAUTISTA VILLEGAS, a/k/a Laurentoni Baza Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-RLV-DCK-6)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Butler, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jilberto Bautista Villegas pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. On
appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the
district court erred under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in sentencing
Villegas to 120 months of imprisonment. Although informed of
his right to do so, Villegas has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Villegas’ sentence for reasonableness using
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly
calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors,
sentencing using clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if
we find a sentence procedurally reasonable may we consider its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Here, we discern no basis to conclude that Villegas’
within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell, 650
F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence
within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011). We also note that Villegas
avoided a mandatory twenty-year sentence because the Government
withdrew its 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) notice. Thus, Villegas’
challenge to the propriety of his sentence lacks merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Villegas’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Villegas in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Villegas 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 Villegas. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3