UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4155
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ENZO BLANKS, a/k/a Zo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00512-ELH-2)
Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara E. Kittay, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.
Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Enzo Blanks pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
Blanks and the Government negotiated a Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C) agreement, stipulating that the parties agreed to
imposition of the mandatory minimum 120-month sentence. In
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Blanks’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court procedurally erred in imposing Blanks’ sentence.
Although notified of his right to do so, Blanks has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s
judgment.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for
both procedural and substantive reasonableness. 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. 552 U.S. at 49-51.
2
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we
then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any
sentence that is within . . . a properly calculated Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian,
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing
that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
. . . § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
We review the district court’s drug-quantity calculation
and the application of a leadership enhancement for clear error.
United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 756 (4th Cir.
2011). The district court heard evidence and allowed the
parties to argue their cases. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court’s findings are not clearly
erroneous. Our review of the record further shows no other
procedural or substantive error. Additionally, the mandatory
minimum sentence the district court imposed is per se
reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir. 2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Blanks, in writing, of
3
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Blanks 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 Blanks.
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