US v. Benjamin Calderon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00155-NCT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999749862]. [15-4242]
Appeal: 15-4242
Doc: 35
Filed: 02/05/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENJAMIN
Nolasco,
JULIO AYUSO
CALDERON,
a/k/a
Raul
Rafael
Vargas-
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00155-NCT-1)
Submitted:
January 27, 2016
Decided:
February 5, 2016
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renorda E. Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4242
Doc: 35
Filed: 02/05/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Julio Ayuso Calderon appeals his conviction and
the
sentence
imposed
after
he
pled
guilty
to
possession
of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that
she
has
found
no
meritorious
grounds
for
appeal
but
questioning whether the district court’s decision to impose a
Guidelines sentence was reasonable.
Calderon was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
We
review
a
reasonableness,
sentence
applying
for
“an
procedural
and
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
significant
procedural
reasonableness
of
circumstances.”
a
Id.
error,
we
sentence
We
presume
on
“the
standard.”
Having found no
examine
under
substantive
the
substantive
totality
appeal
that
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
a
of
the
within-
United States
v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.
Ct. 421 (2014).
“by
showing
that
The defendant can rebut that presumption only
the
sentence
is
unreasonable
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Id.
when
measured
Having reviewed
the record, we conclude that Calderon has failed to rebut the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
2
Appeal: 15-4242
Doc: 35
In
Filed: 02/05/2016
accordance
with
Pg: 3 of 3
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none.
sentence.
writing,
Accordingly,
we
affirm
Calderon’s
conviction
and
This court requires that counsel inform Calderon, in
of
his
right
to
petition
United States for further review.
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
If Calderon requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Calderon.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?