US v. Alvaro Ala

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998620658].. [10-4839]

Appeal: 10-4839

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/28/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Balmore Alas,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1)

Submitted:

June 20, 2011

Decided:

June 28, 2011

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Andrew
Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4839

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/28/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alvaro Ezequeil Alas was sentenced to 224 months of
imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006).

His attorney has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating

there

are

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal,

but

nevertheless arguing that the sentence imposed is procedurally
unreasonable

because

the

district

court

failed

to

make

an

individualized assessment of the facts presented and failed to
sufficiently state the reasons for the sentence imposed.
filed

a

supplemental

brief,

arguing

that

the

district

Alas
court

plainly erred in imposing a two-level leadership role sentencing
enhancement.

Finding no reversible 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); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009).

In determining the

procedural reasonableness of the sentence, we consider whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

2

Appeal: 10-4839

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/28/2011

Page: 3 of 4

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on
the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.”
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
imposed

a

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

Where, as here, the district court

within-Guidelines

sentence,

the

explanation

“less extensive, while still individualized.”

may

be

United States v.

Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct.

2128

(2010).

Generally,

a

court

provides

an

adequate

explanation for a Guidelines sentence when it indicates that it
is “rest[ing] [its] decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning
that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of
§ 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case,
and

that

typical.”

the

judge

has

found

that

the

case

before

him

is

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Counsel did not preserve a claim of error, and thus
our review is for plain error.

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d

572, 579-80 (4th Cir. 2010).

We conclude that the district

court adequately explained its chosen sentence.

Moreover, Alas

fails to show that the lack of a more detailed explanation had a
prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed.

United States v.

Washington, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005).
We review the district court’s decision to apply a
sentencing

adjustment

based

on
3

the

defendant’s

role

in

the

Appeal: 10-4839

Document: 39

Date Filed: 06/28/2011

offense for clear error.
224 (4th Cir. 2002).
enhancement

if

he

supervisor

in

any

Page: 4 of 4

United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219,
A defendant qualifies for a two-level

was

“an

organizer,

criminal

leader,

activity.”

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2010).

manager,

U.S.

or

Sentencing

“Leadership over only one

other participant is sufficient as long as there is some control
exercised.”

United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th

Cir. 2003).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly

err in imposing a two-level leadership enhancement.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Alas’ conviction and sentence.

This court

requires that counsel inform Alas, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Alas requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Alas.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4