UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUCIANO JAIMES TAVIRA, a/k/a Luciano Tavira Jaimes, a/k/a 

Noel Martinez Garcia,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00040-WO-1; 1:08-cr-00443-WO-1)

Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nancy R. Gaines, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luciano Jaimes Tavira pled guilty, pursuant to written 

plea agreements, to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006), possession with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) 

(2006), and being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006); he was sentenced to a total term 

of 292 months imprisonment. Tavira’s attorney has filed a brief 

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

contending that there are no meritorious issues on appeal but 

questioning whether Tavira’s sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. Although informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, Tavira has not done so. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s sentence for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires 

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must assess 

whether the district court properly calculated the advisory 

Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) 

factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized 
3

explanation must accompany every sentence.”) (emphasis omitted); 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(same). In addition, this court presumes on appeal that a 

sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range 

is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 

178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that Tavira’s sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

properly calculated Tavira’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 

473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its 

sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the 

case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Tavira has not rebutted the 

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. 

We therefore find the sentence reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Tavira’s convictions and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Tavira, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Tavira 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 
4

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Tavira. 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