UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISRAEL PEREZ GARCIA, a/k/a Esequiel Garcia Guzman,
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-00212-TDS-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2013 Decided: January 18, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart
Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Israel Perez Garcia appeals his sentence after
pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride and possession of a firearm during and in relation
to a drug trafficking crime. Garcia’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court
erred in denying Garcia’s request for a variance sentence below
his Guidelines range. Garcia was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated
2
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In sentencing, the district court should first
calculate the Guidelines range and give the parties an
opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem
appropriate. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court should then consider
the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the
sentence requested by either party. Id. When rendering a
sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330.
In explaining the chosen sentence, the “sentencing
judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the record.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Garcia’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
him. The district court properly calculated Garcia’s Guidelines
3
range, reasonably determined that a sentence within that range
was appropriate based on its consideration of the § 3553(a)
factors, and adequately explained its sentencing decision.
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 district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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
4