US v. Jorge Albarran-Rivera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cr-00095-FL-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998906844].. [11-5072]

Appeal: 11-5072

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5072

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE ALBARRAN-RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00095-FL-3)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5072

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jorge

Albarran-Rivera

pled

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006).

The district

court sentenced Albarran-Rivera to 135 months’ imprisonment.

On

appeal, Albarran-Rivera’s counsel filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning

whether

Albarran-Rivera

was

Albarran-Rivera’s
informed

of

his

sentence
right

supplemental brief, but has not done so.

to

is
file

reasonable.
a

pro

se

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 Albarran-Rivera’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 Albarran-Rivera, appropriately treated the
2

Appeal: 11-5072

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/01/2012

sentencing

Guidelines

considered

the

as

Pg: 3 of 4

advisory,

applicable

properly

Guidelines

range,

calculated
and

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

and

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

135-month

sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 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.

This

court

requires

that

counsel

inform

Albarran-

Rivera, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.

If Albarran-Rivera

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
3

Appeal: 11-5072

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

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 AlbarranRivera.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4