Case ID: f-appx_312/html/0529-01.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. Rogelio Garcia PENAFIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-4455.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 9, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 24, 2009.
    C. Scott Holmes, Brock, Payne & Meece, PA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rogelio Garcia Penafiel appeals his conviction and the district court’s judgment imposing a sentence of sixty-five months in prison and four years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute five hundred grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). On appeal, Penafiel’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Pe-nafiel was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but. he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review PenafiePs sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -,128 S.Ct. 586, 590, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guideline range. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2525, 171 L.Ed.2d 805 (2008). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Penafiel, and his sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly found his guideline range was sixty to seventy-one months and reasonably concluded a sentence in the middle of the range was appropriate in his case.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED