UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROGELIO BERRA DE LA PAZ,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

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

Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00049-WO-1)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Rogelio Berra De La Paz appeals the 135-month sentence 

imposed following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of a firearm by an illegal 

alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006). On appeal, 

De La Paz’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she concludes that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the 

reasonableness of the sentence. De La Paz was informed of his 

right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but he has failed to 

file one. We affirm. 

This court reviews a sentence for procedural and 

substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

District courts are required to properly calculate the 

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

factors, analyze any arguments presented by the parties, and 

sufficiently explain the selected sentence. Id.; see also

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

individualized explanation must accompany every sentence.”); 

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

(same). The district court’s explanation need not be extensive, 

so long as we are satisfied “‘that the district court has 
3

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for 

exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United 

States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)), 

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). Finally, we review the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the 

totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing 

court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it 

chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United 

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Counsel has failed to identify any reversible error in

the imposition of De La Paz’s within-Guidelines sentence. The 

record indicates that the district court followed the necessary 

procedural steps in sentencing De La Paz. Moreover, we do not 

believe that De La Paz’s sentence is substantively unreasonable 

under the circumstances of this case. Thus, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing De 

La Paz.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and found no other issues of arguable merit. Therefore, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires 

that counsel inform her client, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but 
4

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