UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4209
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE JOAN CRUZ-SANTANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00126-F-2)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 17, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, WALTER H. PARAMORE, III, P.C.,
Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Joan Cruz-Santander appeals his convictions and
the 180-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms
or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2006), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006). Counsel for Cruz-Santander filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Cruz-Santander was
informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not
done so. The Government declined to file a brief.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence for “significant
procedural error,” including “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 erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from
the Guidelines.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We next assess the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account
2
the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51). Because Cruz-Santander received the sentence he requested,
our review is for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 577-78, 580 (4th Cir. 2010); see also United States v.
Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (reviewing claim of
procedural unreasonableness for plain error because defendant
did not argue for sentence different from sentence he received).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court properly calculated Cruz-Santander’s Guidelines
range and offered a sufficiently reasoned explanation for the
sentence imposed. Cruz-Santander’s sentence to the statutory
mandated minimum terms of imprisonment is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d
210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Cruz-Santander, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cruz-Santander 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
3
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on his 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