UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JUAN MEDINA VALENCIA, a/k/a Carlos Diaz-Rios,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00139-JAB-1)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Medina Valencia pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to illegal reentry of a felon, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2006). He was 

sentenced to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. Valencia’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

Valencia’s sentence is reasonable. Valencia was notified of his 

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

The Government declined to file a response. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. 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, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, 

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

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at 51. 

“When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an 

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). We then 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, 
3

taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a 

properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United 

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).

In this case, the district court correctly calculated 

the Guidelines range and heard argument from the counsel. 

Pursuant to our Anders review, we note the district court did 

not articulate its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors or 

give an individualized assessment for its chosen sentence. 

However, we conclude that any such omission did not affect 

Valencia’s substantial rights. See United States v. Lynn, 592 

F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding no plain error in district 

court’s brief explanation of chosen sentence, given that defense 

counsel argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range and 

the defendant received such a sentence). Here, defense counsel 

advocated for a sentence at the low end of the advisory 

Guidelines range and Valencia received the lowest possible 

sentence within the Guidelines range. Furthermore, Valencia

offers no grounds to rebut the appellate presumption of 

reasonableness afforded a within-Guidelines sentence. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in sentencing Valencia. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 
4

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Valencia, in writing, of 

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

further review. If Valencia 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 Valencia. 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