UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
UBALDO SANDOVAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00044-RJC-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Rafael Rodríguez, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ubaldo Sandoval pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006). Sandoval was sentenced
to 228 months of imprisonment, a variance sentence below the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Appellate counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
raises the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and
whether the sentence was reasonable. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Initially, counsel questions whether the district
court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 but concludes
there was no error by the court. As Sandoval did not seek to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or otherwise
preserve any alleged Rule 11 error by timely objection, review
by the court is for plain error. United States v. Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004); United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, the
defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was
plain, and that the error affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34
(1993); United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2009) (stating that defendant bears burden of establishing
2
each of the plain error requirements). We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court committed no
reversible error in conducting the Rule 11 hearing.
Although he offers no specific claims of error,
counsel also questions whether Sandoval’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. This court reviews 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 the court to inspect the
sentence for procedural reasonableness by ensuring that the
district court committed no significant procedural errors, 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. Boulware, 604
F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). A reviewing court then
considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is within
or below the Guidelines range, this court presumes on appeal
that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674
F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (below-Guidelines sentence is
entitled to presumption of reasonableness).
Here, the district court properly calculated
Sandoval’s Guidelines sentence, after hearing and sustaining an
3
objection by Sandoval, and then imposed a below-Guidelines
downward variance sentence. The court provided sufficient
reasoning supporting its decision. Regarding the substantive
reasonableness of Sandoval’s sentence, the district court’s
imposition of a sentence below the Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable, and Sandoval has not rebutted that
presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his 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 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