UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4822
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HILDEBERTO GONZALEZ-CHAVEZ, a/k/a Beetle,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00022-RLV-DSC-2)
Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: May 10, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP & WINTHROP, Statesville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hildeberto Gonzalez-Chavez pleaded guilty, pursuant to
a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to manufacture,
distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2006). The district court sentenced Gonzalez-Chavez to 168
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging
that the district court erred by failing to articulate its
reasons for denying Gonzalez-Chavez’s request for a downward
variance and questioning the reasonableness of the sentence.
Counsel also questions whether the district court erred in
applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a
firearm. In Gonzalez-Chavez’s pro se supplemental brief, he
joins counsel in raising these arguments. The Government
declined to file a responsive brief. Following a careful review
of the record, we affirm.
Because Gonzalez-Chavez did not move in the district
court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing
for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002). To prevail under this standard, Gonzalez-
Chavez must establish that an error occurred, was plain, and
affected his substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg,
564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the record
2
establishes that the district court substantially complied with
Rule 11’s requirements, ensuring that Gonzalez-Chavez’s plea was
knowing and voluntary.
We review Gonzalez-Chavez’s sentence under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). After determining whether the
district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, we must decide whether the court considered the § 3553(a)
factors, analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217
(4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the
defendant demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when
3
measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Gonzalez-Chavez asserts that the district court erred
in applying the two-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2011), for
the firearm found in Gonzalez-Chavez’s residence. Gonzalez-
Chavez stipulated in his plea agreement that the two-level
enhancement was applicable. At the guilty plea hearing, the
Government summarized the plea agreement, including this
stipulation, and Gonzalez-Chavez confirmed its accuracy.
Gonzalez-Chavez did not object to the enhancement in the
presentence report, nor did he at any time dispute that he
possessed the firearm in connection with the drug conspiracy.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in
applying the enhancement to which Gonzalez-Chavez stipulated.
Gonzalez-Chavez also argues that the district court
erred in failing to grant a downward variance. The court fully
responded to defense counsel’s argument for a below-Guidelines
sentence, provided a detailed individualized assessment, and
clearly explained the imposed sentence. Because the district
court correctly calculated and considered as advisory the
applicable Guidelines range and adequately explained its
4
sentencing determination, we conclude that Gonzalez-Chavez’s
sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Finally, Gonzalez-Chavez questions the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. The district court thoroughly
evaluated these arguments in denying Gonzalez-Chavez’s request
for a downward variance. Furthermore, our review of the record
leads us to conclude that Gonzalez-Chavez has not overcome the
presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Gonzalez-
Chavez.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Gonzalez-Chavez’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Gonzalez-
Chavez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Gonzalez-Chavez
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 Gonzalez-
Chavez.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
5
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
6