US v. Carlos Guinto-Morale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00347-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778102].. [15-4313]

Appeal: 15-4313

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4313

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS GUINTO-MORALES, a/k/a Carlos Guinto Morales, a/k/a
Alfredo Mendoza-Morales,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00347-WO-1)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4313

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Guinto-Morales pled guilty to illegal reentry by an
aggravated

felon,

8

U.S.C.

§

1326(a),

(b)(2)

(2012).

He

received a Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.

On

appeal, counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967)

brief,

whether

finding

no

Guinto-Morales’

meritorious

sentence

is

issues,

but

questioning

substantively

reasonable.

Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552

We first review for significant procedural

errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate
or

improperly

calculated

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

range,

treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence.
reasonable,

we

Id.

then

If we find the sentence procedurally
examine

substantive

reasonableness,

considering the totality of the circumstances.

Id.

If the

sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption

of

reasonableness.

United

States

v.

Mendoza-

Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record in this case and find that
Guinto-Morales’

sentence

district

meaningfully

court

is

substantively

reasonable.

responded

defense

2

to

The

counsel’s

Appeal: 15-4313

Doc: 31

arguments

Filed: 03/21/2016

for

Guidelines

a

sentence

range,

at

and

Pg: 3 of 3

the

low

explained

end

of,

its

or

below,

chosen

the

sentence.

Furthermore, Guinto-Morales presents no evidence to rebut the
presumption

of

reasonableness

applicable

to

his

within-

Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Guinto-Morales’ conviction and sentence.

We
This

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

If Guinto-Morales 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 Guinto-Morales.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3