United States v. Dagoberto Enamorado

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4306

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

DAGOBERTO ENAMORADO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00284-TDS-1)

Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Dagoberto Enamorado pled guilty to illegal reentry by

a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1)

(2006). The district court sentenced him to 21 months’

imprisonment. Enamorado’s counsel filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in

counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

questioning whether Enamorado’s sentence was reasonable.

Enamorado was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.

We have reviewed Enamorado’s sentence and conclude

that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed

was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.

2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural

steps in sentencing Enamorado, appropriately treated the

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and

considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of

Enamorado’s individual characteristics and history. We conclude

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.

2
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. This court requires that counsel inform Enamorado, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Enamorado 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 Enamorado. 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