UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENJAMIN JULIO AYUSO CALDERON, a/k/a Raul Rafael Vargas-
Nolasco,
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. (1:14-cr-00155-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renorda E. Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Julio Ayuso Calderon appeals his conviction and
the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that she has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court’s decision to impose a
Guidelines sentence was reasonable. Calderon was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness, applying “an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Having found no
significant procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence under “the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. We presume on appeal that a within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States
v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.
Ct. 421 (2014). The defendant can rebut that presumption only
“by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Having reviewed
the record, we conclude that Calderon has failed to rebut the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm Calderon’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Calderon, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Calderon requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Calderon. 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
3