UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PEDRO MALDONADO-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-RLV-DSC-3)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Maldonado-Sanchez appeals the judgment imposed
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent cocaine and money laundering conspiracy. On
appeal, Maldonado-Sanchez’s attorney 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. Maldonado-Sanchez was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not filed a brief. We affirm.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Maldonado-Sanchez. See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d
232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). We
discern no procedural sentencing error, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Maldonado-Sanchez has failed
to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively
reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir. 2014). Additionally, we have reviewed the guilty plea
colloquy and find that Maldonado-Sanchez’s plea was both knowing
and voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 813 (4th Cir. 2014)
(noting plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error where
2
defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty plea); Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform Maldonado-Sanchez, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Maldonado-Sanchez requests that the 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 Maldonado-Sanchez. 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