UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4645
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRISTIAN VERA-COVARRUVIAS, a/k/a Cristian Vera Covarruvias, a/k/a
Cristian Vera Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera-Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera
Covarrubias, a/k/a Christian Vera Cobarrubias,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00105-LCB-1)
Submitted: April 12, 2019 Decided: April 17, 2019
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harvey A. Carpenter IV, THE LAW OFFICES OF H.A. (ALEC) CARPENTER IV,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cristian Vera-Covarruvias pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to reentry
of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). He received a 16-month
sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. The Defendant did not file a pro se
supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a response. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness using an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court first reviews for significant
procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider substantive
reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the
Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the selected
sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances, and if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines range, this
court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288,
295 (4th Cir. 2012).
The district court heard argument from the parties, afforded the Defendant an
opportunity to allocute, and imposed a sentence of 16 months—within the Sentencing
Guidelines range. The court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and rendered
an individualized assessment in this case. The court stated that the sentence was
sufficiently severe, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the sentencing
2
objectives of § 3553(a). We conclude that the Defendant has not rebutted the
presumption of reasonableness and that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Vera-Covarruvias’
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Vera-Covarruvias, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Vera-Covarruvias 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
Vera-Covarruvias. 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