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

**No. 15**  **- 4161** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SERGIO GARZA, a/k/a Anatolio Balderas

- Sanchez , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00076

- BR

- 1 )

Submitted : January 19, 2016 Decided: March 8, 2016

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas P
. McNamara, Federal Public Defender , Stephen C
. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G
. Walker , U nited S tates Attorney , Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Eleanor Morales , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sergio Garza pleaded guilty to illegally ree ntering the United States after having been removed following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced Garza within the advisory Guidelines range to 27 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. On appeal, Garza challenges the procedural r easonableness of the sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2 007); see also United States v. Layton , 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009 ). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidel ines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012 )] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 . In conducting an individualized assessm ent at sentencing , a district court must respond to the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments for imposing a sentence outside of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
.3 We then “ ‘consider the substantive reas onableness of the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall , 552 U.S. at 51). We will presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 346

- 56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within

- Guidelines sentence). Garza argues that the district court erroneously determined that it could not d epart or vary from the Guidelines range based on the unavailability of a fast track, or early disposition, program. Such programs provide for a departure in illegal reentry cases if the defendant admitted guilt in a timely manner and the government , havin g determined that such a departure is warranted , moves for a departure
. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K3.1 (2015). Here, the court erred in determining that an early disposition program was not available in the district of the prosecution. Ho wever, that error was harmless as the Government did not move for a departure pursuant
to § 5K3.1 of the Guidelines. Without such a motion, the court could not have departed under that section. Therefore, we conclude that the sentence is procedurally rea sonable; we further conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable.4 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before thi s court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED