UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4476
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EZEQUIEL GARCIA GONZALES, a/k/a Yoo-Hoo,
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-00253-TDS-6)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles L. White, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ezequiel Garcia Gonzales pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
The district court sentenced Gonzales to the mandatory minimum
term of 120 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 is reasonable. Although Gonzales was informed of the
right to file a supplemental pro se brief, he has not done so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
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 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
2
for within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and conclude that the sentence is 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 Gonzales, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Gonzales 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 Gonzales. 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