UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4881

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROMMEL ERNESTO DUARTE-JUAREZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (6:13-cr-00278-JMC-1)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Rommel Ernesto Duarte-Juarez pled guilty without a 

plea agreement to one count of assaulting, resisting or impeding 

certain officers or employees, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 

(2012), and was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison. 

Duarte-Juarez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s 

view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning whether the district court plainly erred when it 

imposed Duarte-Juarez’s sentence. Duarte-Juarez has not filed a 

pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right 

to do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive 

brief. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 

330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). This review requires consideration of 

both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first assess whether the 

district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines 

range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and 

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

49–51; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
3

2010). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error, 

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).

In this case, the district court properly calculated 

Duarte-Juarez’s Guidelines range, denied the Government’s motion 

for a downward variant sentence, treated the Guidelines as 

advisory, and considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. 

Moreover, the record establishes that the district court based 

Duarte-Juarez’s sentence on its “individualized assessment” of 

the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 

328 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we conclude that DuarteJuarez’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. Thus, in the 

absence of any evidence or argument suggesting that the sentence 

is substantively unreasonable, we presume on appeal that DuarteJuarez’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Susi, 674 

F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Duarte-Juarez, in writing, of the 
4

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Duarte-Juarez 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 Duarte-Juarez. 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