UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4567
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PANFILO BAUTISTA-MARCIAL,
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. (1:11-cr-00383-WO-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Panfilo Bautista-Marcial pled guilty to transferring
false identification documents and possession of five or more
false identification documents. The district court sentenced
him to 37 months’ imprisonment on each charge, to run
concurrently. Bautista-Marcial’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 Bautista-Marcial’s sentence
was reasonable. Bautista-Marcial 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 Bautista-Marcial’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); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th
Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Bautista-Marcial, 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 Bautista-Marcial’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;
2
United States v. 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 Bautista-
Marcial, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Bautista-Marcial
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 Bautista-
Marcial. 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