UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICIO GOCHEZ MURILLO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00230-TDS-1)

Submitted: November 6, 2013 Decided: November 14, 2013

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Andrew Charles Cochran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mauricio Gochez Murillo appeals his sentence totaling 

130 months in prison after pleading guilty to interference with 

commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), 

brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006), 

and illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a) (2006). Murillo’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 of whether the district court erred by imposing a 

sentence of 130 months imprisonment. Murillo was notified of 

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

so. We affirm Murillo’s sentence and the district court’s 

judgment, but we remand for the purpose of correcting a clerical 

error in the written judgment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(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 Guidelines range, 

failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or 

failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is 
3

procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We 

presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines 

range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 

F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). Moreover, a statutorily required 

sentence is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 

F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that 

Murillo’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, 

and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in 

sentencing him to 130 months in prison. The district court 

properly calculated his Guidelines range and reasonably 

determined that a sentence within the range on counts one and 

three, followed by the mandatory consecutive seven-year prison 

term on count two, was appropriate in this case. 

As to count three, the district court adopted the 

presentence report and determined that Murillo’s removal from 

the United States in 2009 was subsequent to his conviction for a 

felony in 2006, and the court correctly applied the penalty 

provisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) (2006); U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 (2012). However, the written judgment 

erroneously states that Murillo was convicted of illegal reentry 

of an aggravated felon. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) (2006).
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, 

but we remand to the district court with instructions to correct 

the written judgment to conform to the court’s oral findings. 

This court requires that counsel inform his or her 

client, in writing, of his or her 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 AND REMANDED