US v. Baldomero Cardona

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00072-WO-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [998786666]. [11-4349]

Appeal: 11-4349

Document: 28

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BALDOMERO PENA CARDONA, a/k/a Camacho,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00072-WO-2)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4349

Document: 28

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Baldomero Pena Cardona pled guilty to distribution of
a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.

The district

court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment — the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence.

Cardona’s attorney filed a brief in

accordance

California,

with

Anders

v.

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning

whether

the

sentence

imposed

was

reasonable.

Although notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, Cardona has not done so.

Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.
We have reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy
and find that the district court fully complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11, and that Cardona’s plea was knowing and voluntarily
entered.

We therefore affirm his conviction.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court for

reasonableness,
standard.

applying

a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).

Such review requires consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence.

Id. at 41; see United

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps

in

sentencing

sentencing

Guidelines

Cardona,
as

appropriately

advisory,
2

properly

treated
calculated

the
and

Appeal: 11-4349

Document: 28

considered

the

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

applicable

Page: 3 of 4

Guidelines

range,

and

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors.

weighed

the

We examine the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality of
the circumstances.
(4th

Cir.

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473

2007).

This

court

accords

a

sentence

within

a

properly calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of
reasonableness.

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,

216 (4th Cir. 2010).

Such a presumption is rebutted only by

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the [§ 3553(a)] factors.”
F.3d

375,

379

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445
2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

We conclude that the district court’s consideration

of

3553(a)

the

§

factors

and

imposition

of

the

120-month

mandatory minimum sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of
discretion.
491

F.3d

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen,
178,

193

(4th

Cir.

2007)

(applying

appellate

presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Cardona, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Cardona requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
3

Appeal: 11-4349

Document: 28

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 4 of 4

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 Cardona.

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