UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3