UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE DE JESUS S. SAHAGUN,
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-00143-NCT-1)
Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: July 19, 2012
Before DAVIS and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose de Jesus S. Sahagun appeals the seventeen-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for Sahagun has
submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but requesting that we review the
reasonableness of Sahagun’s sentence. Although advised of his
right to do so, Sahagun has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Turning first to the only issue raised in counsel’s
Anders brief, we review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first consider whether the district
court committed any “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 erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. If no procedural error was
made, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
A sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines
2
range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali,
528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).
We readily conclude that Sahagun’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The sentence is
procedurally reasonable inasmuch as the district court properly
calculated the applicable Guidelines range and appropriately
explained the sentence in the context of the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. Further, the within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively substantively reasonable, and we divine no basis
to rebut that presumption.
In fulfilling our duty under Anders, we next review
Sahagun’s conviction. Because Sahagun has not challenged the
validity of his guilty plea in the district court, we review
only for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524–27 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals that
the district court substantially complied with the dictates of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and committed no error warranting correction
on plain error review.
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 judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Sahagun, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Sahagun 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 Sahagun. 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