UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
IGNACIO GARCIA CARRIZALES,
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. (1:12-cr-00061-WO-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ignacio Garcia Carrizales, a native and citizen of
Mexico, pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry of an
aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2)
(2006). The district court imposed a sentence of fifty-six
months’ 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 Garcia Carrizales was informed of the right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court’s
sentence is unreasonably high because it is greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
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 § 3553(a)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. This court presumes on appeal that a sentence
2
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 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
Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Garcia Carrizales, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Garcia Carrizales 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 Garcia Carrizales.
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