UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEXIS VILLALTA-MORALES, a/k/a Rikichi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:15-cr-00121-RJC-DSC-36)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR. 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexis Villalta-Morales pled guilty, pursuant to a written 

plea agreement, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering 

enterprise, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963(a) (2012), attempted murder 

in aid of a racketeering enterprise, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (2012), 

and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in relation to a crime 

of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court 

sentenced Villalta-Morales below his advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range to 204 months’ imprisonment. In accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Villalta-Morales’ 

counsel has filed a brief certifying there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Villalta-Morales’ 

sentence is reasonable. Villalta-Morales has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court 

properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines 

range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate 

sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 
3

49-51. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality 

of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively 

reasonable if it is within or below the Guidelines range, and this 

“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 

2014).

In this case, the record establishes that Villalta-Morales’ 

sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In 

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

case and Villalta-Morales’ pro se supplemental brief and have found 

no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform

Villalta-Morales, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Villalta-Morales 

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 Villalta-Morales.

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