US v. Juventino Rodriguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00415-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015751].. [16-4449]

Appeal: 16-4449

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUVENTINO BENITEZ RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00415-JAB-1)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4449

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juventino Benitez Rodriguez pled guilty to distribution of
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of
a

firearm

in

furtherance

of

a

drug

trafficking

offense,

18

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).

He was sentenced to a total term of 134

months’

On

imprisonment.

appeal,

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
the reasonableness of Rodriguez’s sentence.

Although informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rodriguez has
not done so.

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review Rodriguez’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.”

United

States

v.

McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
consideration

of

both

the

This review entails appellate
procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.

and

substantive

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

We

presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable.

See Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court

properly

calculated

the

Guidelines

range,

treated

the

Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties
2

Appeal: 16-4449

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered
the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence
not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained
the

chosen

within

the

sentence.

Furthermore,

Guidelines

range.

Rodriguez’s

Therefore,

we

sentence
conclude

was
that

Rodriguez’s sentence is reasonable.
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 Rodriguez, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Rodriguez requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Rodriguez.

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