**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4978** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ

- RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00309

- WO

- 5 )
Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: October 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STAT ES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, N orth Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rafael Hernandez

- Rodriguez pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Hernandez

- Rodriguez to 121 months’ imprisonment, and he timely appeals. Counsel for Hernandez

- Rodriguez has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning (1) whether the district court erred in denying Hernandez

Rodriguez’s motion to suppress evidence found in a traffic stop of his vehicle; and (2) whether Hernandez

- Rod riguez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Hernandez

- Rodriguez, informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, has not done so. Finding no merit to either issue raised by counsel, we affirm. In the first issue, Hernandez

- Rodriguez seeks t o challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Hernandez

- Rodriguez that resulted in the discovery of a quantity of cocaine. Hernandez

- Rodriguez did not , however, enter a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a )(2) , by which he could have preserved this issue for appeal . A knowing and voluntary guilty plea foreclose s all antecedent, nonjurisdictional defects “not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and3 which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established.” Menna v. New York , 423 U.S. 61, 62 n.2 (1975) ; see Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); United States v. Moussaoui , 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he defendant who has pled gui lty has no non

- jurisdictional ground upon which to attack that judgment except the inadequac y of the plea or the government’ s power to bring any indictment at all.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The legality of the traffic stop underlying this conv iction and whether Hernandez

Rodriguez was “in custody” as that term is defined in Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), are just such antec edent, nonjurisdictional issues, and Hernandez

- Rodriguez is therefore entitled to no relief on his first claim. Counsel next challenges the substantive reasonableness of Hernandez

- Rodriguez’s sentence of 121 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. We review the sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse

- of

- discre tion standard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court properly calculates the defendant ’ s advisory Guidelines range, gives the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sent ence, consid ers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, does not rely on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explains the selected sentence. Id. at 49

– 51. Our4 review of the s entencing transcript pursuant to Anders convinces

us that Hernandez

- Rodriguez’s senten ce is procedurally reasonable. As to substantive reasonableness, the 121

- month sentence, at the bottom of Hernandez

- Rodriguez’s properly

calculated Guidelines range, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, United States v. Strieper , 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012) , which Hernandez

- Rodriguez has not rebutted. See United States v. Montes

- Pineda , 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A defendant can only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured again st the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the remainder of the recor d in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the dist rict
court’ s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Hernandez

- Rodriguez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States fo r further review. If Hernandez

- Rodriguez 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 from5 representation. Counsel’ s motion must state that a co py thereof was served on Hernandez

- Rodriguez. 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