UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE LORETO TORRES PORTILLO,
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-00253-TDS-5)
Submitted: January 9, 2013 Decided: January 14, 2013
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Loreto Torres Portillo pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court
sentenced Portillo to 120 months of imprisonment and he now
appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the sentence was reasonable. Although Portillo was informed of
the right to file a supplemental pro se brief he has not done
so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence was reasonable. We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so
doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “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.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal
that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
2
(4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the sentence was reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Portillo, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Portillo 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 Portillo. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3