US v. Jilberto Villega

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00005-RLV-DCK-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998924021].. [11-5001]

Appeal: 11-5001

Doc: 67

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JILBERTO BAUTISTA VILLEGAS, a/k/a Laurentoni Baza Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00005-RLV-DCK-6)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided:

August 24, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Butler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 11-5001

Doc: 67

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jilberto Bautista Villegas pled guilty to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

On

appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the
district court erred under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in sentencing
Villegas to 120 months of imprisonment.

Although informed of

his right to do so, Villegas has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Villegas’ sentence for reasonableness using

an abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The first step in this review requires us

to

district

ensure

that

the

procedural error.
(4th

Cir.

court

committed

no

significant

United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161

2008).

Procedural

errors

include

improperly

calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to
consider

the

sentencing

18

using

U.S.C.

§

clearly

3553(a)

(2006)

erroneous

adequately explain the sentence.

sentencing

facts,

or

factors,

failing

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

to

Only if

we find a sentence procedurally reasonable may we consider its
substantive reasonableness.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

2

Appeal: 11-5001

Doc: 67

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

Here, we discern no basis to conclude that Villegas’
within-Guidelines

sentence

substantively unreasonable.

was

either

procedurally

or

See United States v. Powell, 650

F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence
within

applicable

Guidelines

range

denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).

to

be

reasonable),

cert.

We also note that Villegas

avoided a mandatory twenty-year sentence because the Government
withdrew its 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006) notice.

Thus, Villegas’

challenge to the propriety of his sentence lacks merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Villegas’ conviction and sentence.

This

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

If Villegas 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 Villegas.

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