US v. Fabian Beltran Lopez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00015-MSD-LRL-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999253037].. [13-4234]

Appeal: 13-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FABIAN ISRAEL BELTRAN LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00015-MSD-LRL-2)

Submitted:

November 26, 2013

Decided:

December 5, 2013

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Richard J.
Colgan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Laura
Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Fabian

Israel

court’s

judgment

Beltran

Lopez

alleging

his

operation.

Beltran

sentencing

pled

him

to

to

guilty

extensive

Lopez

a

appeals

168

the

months’

imprisonment.

seventeen-count

involvement

in

a

district

indictment

drug

trafficking

Beltran Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there

are

whether

no

meritorious

Beltran

Lopez’s

grounds

sentence

for
is

appeal

but

questioning

substantively

reasonable.

Beltran Lopez, though given the opportunity to do so, has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard.
38,

51

(2007).

procedural

error,

reasonableness

of

If
as
the

the

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

sentence

here,

we

sentence,

totality of the circumstances.”

is

free

consider
“tak[ing]

Id.

of

significant

the

substantive

into

account

the

If the sentence is within

the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is
reasonable.

United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713, 730 (4th Cir.

2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2038 (2013); see Rita v. United
States,

551

U.S.

338,

346–56

(2007)

(permitting

appellate

presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
2

Appeal: 13-4234

Doc: 33

factors.”

Filed: 12/05/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Beltran
sentence

is

Lopez

contends

substantively

that

his

unreasonable

within-Guidelines

because

the

district

court did not accept his argument that the Guidelines were not
empirically based and credited the Government’s interpretation
of Beltran Lopez’s role in the offense.

We will not disregard

the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a withinGuidelines sentence merely because the Guideline in question is
not empirically based.

See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2009).

Additionally, we conclude

that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to
refuse
Lopez’s

to

vary

role

in

below
the

the

Guidelines

offense.

range

Lastly,

we

based

on

conclude

Beltran
that

the

district court gave sufficient reasons for its within-Guidelines
sentence, relying on drug quantity and harm to the community.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

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

but

If Beltran Lopez requests that a petition be

counsel

believes

that

such

a

petition

would

be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
3

Appeal: 13-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/05/2013

withdraw from representation.

Pg: 4 of 4

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Beltran Lopez.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4