UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ONDINA ALONSO-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00432-CCE-1)
Submitted: August 13, 2012 Decided: August 16, 2012
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ondina Alonso-Hernandez appeals the district court’s
judgment after pleading guilty to recruiting, harboring, and
transporting a person for labor and services, including
aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590
(2006). Alonso-Hernandez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in
counsel’s opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but raising the issue of whether Alonso-Hernandez’s sentence is
reasonable. Alonso-Hernandez was notified of her right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential 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, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated
2
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In sentencing, the district court should first
calculate the Guidelines range and give the parties an
opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem
appropriate. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). The district court should then consider relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence
requested by either party. Id. When rendering a sentence, the
district court must make and place on the record an
individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the
case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. In explaining the chosen
sentence, the “sentencing judge should set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory
factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly
reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Alonso-
Hernandez’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court properly calculated her
Guidelines range, reasonably determined that a sentence below
3
that range was appropriate in this case, and adequately
explained its sentencing decision.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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
4