UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN DIAZ-CEBALLOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00162-CCE-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: February 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Diaz-Ceballos pleaded guilty to illegally
reentering the United States after having previously been
removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). The
district court sentenced Diaz-Ceballos to six 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
Diaz-Ceballos 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 district court
adequately explained the sentence. 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 both procedurally and
substantively 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 Diaz-Ceballos,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Diaz-Ceballos 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 Diaz-Ceballos. 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