UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4687
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISMAEL OCEGUEDA-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Ismael Ozequeda-Gonzalez,
a/k/a Ismael Gonzalez-Ocegueda, a/k/a Arnoldo Pineda-Orkeda,
a/k/a Mario Hernandez,
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. (1:15-cr-00030-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ismael Ocegueda-Gonzalez pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and the district court
sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Ocegueda-Gonzalez’s sentence is reasonable.
Ocegueda-Gonzalez was advised of his right to file a supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining
whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, 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, selected a sentence based on facts that
were not clearly erroneous, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. Only after
determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable will we
consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account
the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence
2
that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can
only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Our review of the sentencing transcript revealed no
procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Ocegueda-
Gonzalez has not rebutted the presumption that his within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
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 Ocegueda-Gonzalez, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Ocegueda-Gonzalez 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 Ocegueda-Gonzalez. 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