UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS GUINTO-MORALES, a/k/a Carlos Guinto Morales, a/k/a
Alfredo Mendoza-Morales,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00347-WO-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Guinto-Morales pled guilty to illegal reentry by an
aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). He
received a Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967) brief, finding no meritorious issues, but questioning
whether Guinto-Morales’ sentence is substantively reasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate
or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range,
treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record in this case and find that
Guinto-Morales’ sentence is substantively reasonable. The
district court meaningfully responded to defense counsel’s
2
arguments for a sentence at the low end of, or below, the
Guidelines range, and explained its chosen sentence.
Furthermore, Guinto-Morales presents no evidence to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Guinto-Morales’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Guinto-Morales, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Guinto-Morales 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 Guinto-Morales. 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