UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4173
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONEL DAMIAN BRAVO, a/k/a Leonel Damion Bravo,
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. (1:10-cr-00039-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2011 Decided: October 31, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton Bays Shoaf, ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonel Damian Bravo pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006),
and carrying and using firearms during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Bravo
was sentenced to eleven months for the drug offense and sixty
months, consecutive, for the firearms offense. He now appeals.
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Bravo was
advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed
such a brief. We affirm.
Bravo first claims that the evidence was insufficient
to support his guilty plea to the firearms offense. Upon
review, we conclude that, by pleading guilty, Bravo waived his
right to contest the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the
conviction. See United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th
Cir. 1993) (“[A] guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all
nonjurisdictional defects, including the right to contest the
factual merits of the charges.”) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
Bravo also contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because it is disproportionately high when compared with
similarly situated defendants who have committed similar
2
offenses. We note that the eleven-month sentence for the drug
offense falls within Bravo’s advisory Guidelines range of 8-14
months. This is strong evidence that there was no sentencing
disparity. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 343 (4th
Cir. 2006) (“[B]y devising a recommended sentencing range for
every type of misconduct and every level of criminal history,
the Guidelines as a whole embrace ‘the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct.’”). Further, Bravo
received a consecutive sixty-month sentence for the firearms
offense, as was statutorily required. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). We accordingly reject his claim of
sentencing disparity. Further, having considered the record,
including the presentence investigation report and the
sentencing transcript, we conclude that Bravo’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575-6 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. We therefore
affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
3
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy was served on the client. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4