US v. Juventino Rodriguez
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00415-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4449]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Juventino Benitez Rodriguez pled guilty to distribution of
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).
He was sentenced to a total term of 134
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.
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
McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
This review entails appellate
reasonableness of the sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
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
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties
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
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
requires that counsel inform Rodriguez, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
If Rodriguez requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
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
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?