Case ID: f-appx_712/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge TEXCO-DORANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-4532
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 26, 2018
    Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jorge Texco-Dorantes appeals his 120-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty, without a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel questions, however, whether Texco-Dorantes’ sentence is reasonable. Texco-Dorantes was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We review Texco-Dorantes’ sentence for reasonableness “ ‘under r a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ ” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. 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 an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, Texco-Dorantes’ sentence is the statutory minimum, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and within the Guidelines range, and Texco-Dorantes has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence, see Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306. Therefore, we conclude that Texco-Dorantes’ sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have identified no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Texco-Dorantes, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Texco-Dorantes 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 Texco-Dorantes.

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