UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4259

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JULIAN QUEZADA, a/k/a Oswaldo Hernandez, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

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

Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00330-JAB-1) 

Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: January 28, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Julian Quezada appeals the sixty-five month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering this 

country after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and 

deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). 

Quezada’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the 

reasonableness of Quezada’s sentence. Although advised of his 

right to do so, Quezada has not filed a pro se supplemental 

brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

 We first conclude Quezada’s sentence was reasonable. 

As determined by the Supreme Court, “[r]egardless of whether the 

sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the 

appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 

597 (2007). Appellate courts are charged with reviewing 

sentences for reasonableness. Id. at 594, 597. Reasonableness 

review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural 

and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 597. 

 In determining whether a sentence is procedurally 

reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. Id. at 

596-97. We must then consider whether the district court failed 

2 
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any 

arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on 

“clearly erroneous facts,” or failed to sufficiently explain the 

selected sentence. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 

F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Finally, we review the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account 

the ‘totality of the circumstances.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 

(quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). We afford sentences that 

fall within the properly calculated Guidelines range a 

presumption of reasonableness, see id., as permitted by the 

Supreme Court. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. 

Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). 

 The district court properly calculated Quezada’s 

sentencing range under the Guidelines* and invited counsel to 

make any relevant argument pursuant to the § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. After hearing counsel’s arguments, permitting Quezada 

the opportunity to make a statement, and considering the 

§ 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Quezada to sixty-five 

months’ imprisonment, in the middle of the applicable Guidelines 

 *

 The district court calculated that Quezada’s total 

adjusted offense level was twenty-one and that he had seven 

criminal history points. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) §§ 2L1.2, 4A1.1 (2007). Thus, with a category IV 

criminal history, Quezada’s advisory Guidelines range was fiftyseven to seventy-one months’ imprisonment. USSG ch. 5, pt. A, 

sentencing table. 

3 
4 

range. As our review of the record reveals no procedural or 

substantive defect in Quezada’s sentence, he cannot overcome the 

presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his sentence. 

Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2459, 2462. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

entirety of the record and found no meritorious issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

require that counsel inform Quezada, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Quezada 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 Quezada. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED