UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BALDOMERO PENA CARDONA, a/k/a Camacho,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00072-WO-2)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Baldomero Pena Cardona pled guilty to distribution of
a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The district
court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment — the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence. Cardona’s attorney filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Although notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, Cardona has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We have reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy
and find that the district court fully complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11, and that Cardona’s plea was knowing and voluntarily
entered. We therefore affirm his conviction.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court for
reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
Such review requires consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 41; see United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Cardona, appropriately treated the
sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and
2
considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. We examine the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality of
the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007). This court accords a sentence within a
properly calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of
reasonableness. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only by
showing “that 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). We conclude that the district court’s consideration
of the § 3553(a) factors and imposition of the 120-month
mandatory minimum sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of
discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen,
491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Cardona, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cardona requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
3
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 Cardona. 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