UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOEL LOPEZ-TORRES, a/k/a Julio Rodriguez-Arroyo, a/k/a Julio
Daniel-Rodriguez,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00252-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joel Lopez-Torres (“Lopez”) pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of illegally entering the
United States after deportation or removal as an aggravated
felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), and
one count of possession of a counterfeit alien registration
receipt card, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (2006). The
district court calculated Lopez’s Guidelines range under the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) at forty-one to
fifty-one months’ imprisonment and sentenced Lopez to two
concurrent terms of forty-three months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erred in sentencing Lopez. Lopez was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review Lopez’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). In conducting this review, we
must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)]
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
2
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.
Id. at 51. “When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted), and must
“adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful
appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. “When imposing a sentence
within the Guidelines, however, the [district court’s]
explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy because
[G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many ways tailored to
the individual and reflect approximately two decades of close
attention to federal sentencing policy.” United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is
within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a
presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates “that
3
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
and considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument
from counsel and allocution from Lopez. The court considered
the § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within-Guidelines
sentences were warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of Lopez’s offenses and the need for the sentences
to reflect the seriousness of the offenses and to protect the
public from further crimes by Lopez. Further, neither counsel
nor Lopez offers any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal
that the within-Guidelines sentences of forty-three months’
imprisonment are substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Lopez.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Lopez, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Lopez 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
4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Lopez.
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
5