US v. Modesto Manrique

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00097-RJC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [998705093]. [11-4050]

Appeal: 11-4050

Document: 24

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MODESTO PRADO MANRIQUE, a/k/a Eduardo Carrillo, a/k/a Marco
Govea Torres,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00097-RJC-1)

Submitted:

October 18, 2011

Decided:

October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson,
Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4050

Document: 24

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Modesto

Prado

Manrique

appeals

the

forty-one-month

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry by an
aggravated
(2006).

felon,

in

violation

of

8

U.S.C.

§ 1326(a),

(b)

Counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness
of Manrique’s sentence but stating that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal.

Manrique received notice of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one.

We

affirm.
This

court

reviews

a

district

court’s

sentence

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

for

Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007).

We review the

procedural reasonableness of a sentence by examining whether the
district
determined

court

properly

whether

a

calculated

sentence

within

the
that

Guidelines
range

range,

serves

the

factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and explained its
reasons for selecting the chosen sentence.
473.

Pauley, 511 F.3d at

“A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable.”

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d

178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Manrique.

In addition, Manrique fails to
2

Appeal: 11-4050

rebut

Document: 24

the

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

presumption

Guidelines sentence.

of

Page: 3 of 3

reasonableness

accorded

his

within-

Hence, we conclude that the sentence is

reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Manrique’s sentence.
that

counsel

This court requires

inform

Manrique,

in

writing,

of

Supreme

Court

the

United

States

of

the

right

for

to

petition

the

further

review.

If Manrique requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Manrique.

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

3