UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4794
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE ABEL RAMIREZ-LOPEZ,
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-00309-TDS-3)
Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 17, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Abel Ramirez-Lopez pleaded guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841 (b)(1)(A) (2006). The district court imposed
a 108-month sentence based on the Defendant’s qualification for
the safety valve provision. Counsel for Defendant filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal and
concluding there were no issues to raise. Defendant did not file
a pro se supplemental brief. The Government elected not to file
a brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
We evaluate a guilty plea based on the “the totality
of the circumstances” surrounding the guilty plea. United
States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir 2010). The
Defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and this
court therefore reviews the adequacy of the plea pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002) (holding defendant who lets Rule 11
error pass without objection in the district court must satisfy
the plain-error test); United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
337, 342 (4th Cir. 2009). The district court properly conducted
the Rule 11 hearing and the record reveals that the Defendant’s
plea was knowing and voluntary.
2
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and
consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
49-50 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir.
2010). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 41. The district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing the Defendant, appropriately
treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly
calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and
weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. After applying the
safety valve provision, the Defendant’s Guidelines range was 108
to 135 months. The court imposed a 108-month sentence. If the
sentence is within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines
range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted
only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
3
quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Ramirez-Lopez’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Ramirez-Lopez, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ramirez-Lopez 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 Ramirez-Lopez. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4