United States v. Luis Guzman-Villa

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS GUZMAN-VILLA, a/k/a David Roque-Sanchez, a/k/a Miguel
Ordaz-Chavez, a/k/a Benito Goicochea Pineda,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00044-JAB-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 7, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Luis Guzman-Villa pled guilty, pursuant to a written

plea agreement, to illegal reentry after having been convicted

of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

(b)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to fifty months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no

nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review the

reasonableness of the fifty-month sentence. Although advised of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Guzman-Villa has

not done so. We affirm.

We review Guzman-Villa’s sentence for reasonableness,

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). This review requires

consideration of both the procedural and substantive

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. We first assess

whether the district court properly calculated the advisory

Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the

parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.

at 49–51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th

Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the

totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing

2
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United

States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

If the sentence is within the defendant’s properly calculated

Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (permitting

appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines

sentence).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude

that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively

reasonable. We discern no error in the district court’s

computation of the applicable Guidelines range, the

opportunities it provided Guzman-Villa and his counsel to speak

in mitigation, or its explanation of the sentence imposed by

reference to the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Nor do we find any

basis in the record to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness we accord this within-Guidelines sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Guzman-Villa’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered

and supported by an independent basis in fact. We therefore

affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires

that counsel inform Guzman-Villa, in writing, of the right to

3
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Guzman-Villa 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 Guzman-Villa. 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