**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4584** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICARDO LOPEZ

- VERA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle D istrict of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D
. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00226

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : May 17, 2011 Decided: May 27, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

M ilton B. Shoaf, Jr., ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : In 2003, Ricardo Lopez

- Vera pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Lopez

- Ver a to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. Subsequently, Lopez

- Vera pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and to violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court sentenced Lopez

- Vera to eighty

- seven months of imprisonment fo r the illegal reentry conviction and eighteen months of imprisonment for the supervised release revocation, to be served consecutively. Lopez

- Vera now appeals and a ppellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
q uestioning whether the district court erred in imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment
. Lopez

- Vera was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done

so . Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonablen ess, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton , 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly3 calculating) the G u idelines range, treating the G uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous fact s, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. When “multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, .
. . the terms may run concurrently or consecutively,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a) (2006), and the district court must take into account the § 3553(a) factors in making that decision. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(b) (2006). Finally, we then “‘consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United States v.
Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 20 08) (quoting Gall , 552 U.S. at 51). This court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory G uidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 34 6

- 56 (2007) (upholding presumptio n of reasonableness for within

- G uidelines sentence). Moreover, this court reviews a sentence imposed as a result of a supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. United Stat es v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). The first step in this analysis is a determination of whether the sentence was unreasonable. Id. at 438. This court, in determining reasonableness, follows generally the procedural and substantive4 conside rations employed in reviewing original sentences. Id. On review, we will assume a deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion. Id. at 439. Although a district court must consider the policy
stat ements in C hapter Seven of the Sentencing G uidelines along with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2006) and
§ 3553(a), “‘the court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke its previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maxi mum.’” Crudup , 461 F.3d at 439 (quoting United States v. Lewis , 424 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a sentence imposed after a revocation is not unreasonable, we will not proceed to the second prong of the analysis

— whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable. Crudup , 461 F.3d at 438

- 39. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentences imposed by the district court are reasonable , and the court did not err in imposing consecutive terms of imp risonment. We therefore need not determine whether the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we aff irm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Lopez

- Vera, in5 writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lopez

- Vera requests that a petition be filed, but counsel belie ves 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 Lopez

- Vera. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED