UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4438

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EVERARDO MORA SANCHEZ,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00083-NCT-1)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: July 12, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. 

Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Everardo Mora Sanchez appeals his sentence to 181 

months in prison and five years of supervised release after 

pleading guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 14.9 

kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and possessing firearms in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Sanchez’s attorney has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal but raising the issue that Sanchez wishes to raise of 

whether his sentence is unreasonably high. Sanchez was notified 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not 

done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. 

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (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. Carter, 564 

F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. On 

appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated 
3

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 abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Sanchez, and his sentence is reasonable. As a result of his 

guilty plea, Sanchez was subject to a mandatory minimum prison 

term of ten years on the drug count and a consecutive sixtymonth term on the firearm count. The district court properly 

determined his advisory guideline range was 121 to 151 months on 

the drug count plus the sixty months on the firearm count. 

At sentencing, Sanchez acknowledged he was subject to 

a mandatory sentence of at least fifteen years, and he requested 

that the district court exercise its discretion by imposing a 

sentence at the bottom end of the guideline range on the drug 

count. The district court agreed, sentencing him to 121 months 

and the mandatory minimum sixty months. On appeal, Sanchez’s 

attorney notes that his sentence is just one month over the 

mandatory minimum and acknowledges he is unable to identify any 

reasons supporting an argument that his sentence is unreasonably 

high. We likewise conclude the sentence is not unreasonable.

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, 
4

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