UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4379

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CESAR ALVAREZ-VALDOVINOS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00378-NCT-4)

Submitted: June 18, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States 

Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Cesar Alvarez-Valdovinos pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of possession with the 

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). The district court calculated 

Alvarez-Valdovinos’ Guidelines range at 87 to 108 months’ 

imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007), and 

sentenced Alvarez-Valdovinos to 87 months’ imprisonment. 

Alvarez-Valdovinos now appeals. Counsel 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 

whether the 87-month sentence is reasonable. Alvarez-Valdovinos 

has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. 

We review the reasonableness of Alvarez-Valdovinos’

87-month sentence, under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In conducting 

this review, we “must first ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. “When rendering a 

sentence, the district court must make an individualized 
3

assessment based on the facts presented,” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks and emphasis omitted), and must “adequately explain the 

chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to 

promote the perception of fair sentencing,” Gall, 552 U.S. at 

50. “When imposing a sentence within the Guidelines, however, 

the [district court’s] explanation need not be elaborate or 

lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many 

ways tailored to the individual and reflect approximately two 

decades of close attention to federal sentencing policy.” 

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Once we have determined that the sentence is free of 

procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence is 

within the appropriate Guidelines range, this court applies a 

presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United 

States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). 

In this case, the district court correctly calculated 

the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from counsel 

and allocution from Alvarez-Valdovinos. Even assuming the court 

committed procedural error in failing to provide an 

individualized assessment of Alvarez-Valdovinos’ case, we 
4

conclude that any such omission did not affect AlvarezValdovinos’ substantial rights. See United States v. Lynn, 592 

F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, neither counsel nor

Alvarez-Valdovinos offers any grounds to rebut the appellate 

presumption of reasonableness afforded the within-Guidelines 

sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Alvarez-Valdovinos. 

We have also conducted a careful review of the issues 

raised by Alvarez-Valdovinos in his pro se supplemental brief 

and conclude that no meritorious issues are presented. Finally, 

in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. 

Because Alvarez-Valdovinos did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to 

conclude that the district court substantially complied with the 

mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Alvarez-Valdovinos’ guilty plea 

and that the court’s omissions did not affect AlvarezValdovinos’ substantial rights. Critically, the transcript 

reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported 

by an independent factual basis and that Alvarez-Valdovinos 

entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding 
5

of the consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 

114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no 

plain error. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and 

deny Alvarez-Valdovinos’ motion to withdraw counsel. This court 

requires that counsel inform Alvarez-Valdovinos, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Alvarez-Valdovinos 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 Alvarez-Valdovinos. 

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