UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL MARROQUIN-SANTIAGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00232-WO-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Daniel Marroquin-Santiago pled guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to one count of illegal re-entry of a felon, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2006), and was sentenced to
twenty-one months in prison. * Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he
found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but explaining that
Marroquin-Santiago believes his sentence is greater than
necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2012) factors. Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61
(4th Cir. 2008). If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
*
Marroquin-Santiago was originally sentenced to thirty-
three months in prison, but after he appealed to this court, we
remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing under
our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
2011) (en banc).
2
Marroquin-Santiago raises no challenge to the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence and, after reviewing
the procedural reasonableness of the sentence in accordance with
our obligations under Anders, we have found no meritorious
issues for review. We thus presume that the twenty-one-month
sentence, which was at the top of Marroquin-Santiago’s properly
calculated Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States
v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Although
Marroquin-Santiago suggests that he should have been sentenced
to a lesser term based on his personal history and
characteristics, we conclude that the district court properly
exercised its discretion to reject Marroquin-Santiago’s
arguments in mitigation. See Evans, 526 F.3d at 162
(recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is
required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the
individual case”). Because Marroquin-Santiago has failed to
rebut the presumption this court affords a within-Guidelines
sentence, we affirm his sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
our obligations under Anders and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Marroquin-
Santiago, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
3
of the United States for further review. If Marroquin-Santiago
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 Marroquin-
Santiago. 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