UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CONFESOR LLAMAS, a/k/a Confessor Llamas, a/k/a Confessor
Llamos, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00317-NCT-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Confessor Llamas appeals his 110-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession
of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2012). On appeal, Llamas’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the sentence is reasonable. Llamas has not filed a pro
se supplemental brief despite being granted an extension of time
to file. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
We review Llamas’s sentence for reasonableness “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (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 Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
and adequately explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49–51.
If the sentence is free of “significant procedural
error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. If
2
the sentence is within or below the properly calculated
Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the
sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the
defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
and considered the advisory Guidelines range, heard argument
from counsel, and heard allocution from Llamas. The court
adequately explained that the 110-month sentence was warranted
in light of the nature and circumstances of Llamas’s offense
conduct and his history and characteristics. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Although counsel questions whether the district
court erred by not granting Llamas’s request for a downward
variance due to his history of drug addiction and mental health
issues, the record is clear that the court properly considered
these factors and adequately explained its reasons for not
granting the variance. Llamas does not rebut the presumption of
reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence, see
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012), and we
therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
3
appeal. We therefore affirm Llamas’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Llamas, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Llamas 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 Llamas. 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