UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO MORALES-CARRILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00197-RJC-1)
Submitted: June 22, 2012 Decided: June 28, 2012
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chris Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eduardo Morales-Carrillo pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to illegal reentry after having been
convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to fifty-four
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but questioning whether the magistrate judge adequately complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Morales-Carrillo’s guilty
plea and whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Although
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Morales-Carrillo has not done so. We affirm.
Our review of the existing record * leads us to conclude
that the magistrate judge adequately complied with the mandates
of Rule 11, ensuring that Morales-Carrillo understood the
charges against him, the potential sentence he faced, and the
rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. See United States
*
The district court has certified that, due to equipment
failure, the digital recording of the plea hearing was not
recorded and therefore it is unable to produce a transcript of
the plea hearing. Neither party has responded to the district
court’s certification. Although there is no transcript of the
Rule 11 hearing, the record contains an “Entry and Acceptance of
Guilty Plea” form which was signed by Morales-Carrillo and his
attorney.
2
v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the
record discloses Morales-Carrillo entered his plea knowingly and
voluntarily, and the plea was supported by a sufficient factual
basis. Id. at 119–20.
We review Morales-Carrillo’s sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. We assess whether the
district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the
totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d
216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
3
338, 346-56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Moreover, Morales-Carrillo has failed to overcome
the presumption of reasonableness we accord his within-
Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Morales-Carrillo’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Morales-Carrillo, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Morales-Carrillo 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 Morales-Carrillo.
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